Hugh's comments are correct. If our opponents use wits and brains and stoop to low tricks, then we have to use our wits and brains and think of what our obligations really are. The people of Iraq needed to thank us for what we did. Americans and Westerners can't walk safely in Iraq without escort. This indicates the people in Iraq don't feel an obligation for our safety there. This is shown in polls and other ways.

They have chosen, and they have lifted any obligation we have to stay. We need to focus on the most pressing threats to us.

One is Pakistan and its nukes, subs, networks, etc. is what we have to start focusing on, along with Iran. What was the role of Pakistan on 9-11? We have to start asking our government to answer that instead of their replying to crackpot demolition theories, which they are happy to do instead of answer questions on Pakistan. Will Pakistan have subs that can fire nukes from offshore the US?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 13, 2006 11:26 AM

But….but...what about ‘The New Iraq’ the bastion of freedom…..democracy……..the dignity of man……..universal rights……tolerance? What about all of that, Hugh? What about all those shinning promises wev've been handed? Don't we have the moral imperative to 'make the world safe for democracy'? Seriously: very well put, Hugh!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at September 13, 2006 11:41 AM

test

Posted by: george_rem at September 13, 2006 11:46 AM

The Iran Iraq war was the arabic answer to world war one. It was a brutal affair that ate up men and material based on the square inch of progress at a time. The Iranians used the human wave approach. They would line up their troops that had received minimal training. They would tell them that Allah would protect them. Then they would give the guns and weapons to the guys up front. The guys in back would be instructed to pick up the guns that were on the ground when the guys in front were killed or wounded. Then they would attempt to overun the Iraqi's.

The Iraqi's would use weapons like big electrical generators. Much of the war was fought in a swampy area. They would lay in electrical lines in likely approaches in the swampy area and wait for the charge. When the Iranians came they would flip the switch with predictable results. As the Iraqui's had heavy equipment they needed to move through the swamp, they would wrap the Iranian dead bodies in wire, and with this fill, they were able to create improvised roads.

This was repeated over and over as both countries fought back and forth, taking and loosing the same territory at great cost. It may have been to the advantage of the rest of the world, but there is little to celebrate in trench warfare.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at September 13, 2006 12:04 PM

Valid points, but of course Iran is not an Arab country.

Posted by: george_rem at September 13, 2006 12:06 PM

"Valid points, but of course Iran is not an Arab country."
-- from a posting above

?

Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 12:17 PM

Perhaps something of this sort is already happening. There was an article in today's WSJ about the Saudi's wanting to build a fence along the entire border with Iraq.

Now, if we could only sell them the fencing we could recoup some of that oil money.

Posted by: Rlm at September 13, 2006 12:17 PM

Hugh:

You wrote regarding the Iran-Iraq war: Did it please you to know that for eight years the two most aggressive Arab Muslim states were using up money, men, and materiel fighting each other?

I was just pointing out that Iran, as you of course know very well, is not Arab.

Posted by: george_rem at September 13, 2006 12:23 PM

Sorry. I'll change the text.

Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 12:42 PM

Divide and conquer, or more preferably, divide and bankrupt.

The Muslim way of seeking revenge of equal nature to avenge a wrong is so deeply ingrained in the Arab/Islamic culture that the Muslims make themselves so readily available to subversion.

Step 1.
Pull out of Iraq, leave a few operatives behind and enlist operatives in other nations out of the non-muslim oppressed groups.

Step 2.
Start bombing the mosques.

Step 3.
Watch the fun start, the Sunnis and Shia will be at eachother's throats.

Step 4.
Step up campaign of disinformation

Step 5.
Repeat process starting at step 2

The old CIA was good at this stuff, the agency's supply of operatives was basically vacated by Clinton, but they should still be able to effect this action.

Islam is self destructive, you only have to ignite the fuse.

Posted by: No1 Infidel at September 13, 2006 12:52 PM

Just heard that James Baker, the man who wrote his senior thesis as a Princeton undergraduate on why it was wrong for the United States to support the state of Israel (whole lot of such people in and around Princeton in those years, including Raymond Close, former CIA station chief in Riyadh who quit to go into business with Saudis, and then with BCCI), and who has not changed his mind since, and who has been particularly close to the Saudis, has now been appointed by George Bush to look into Iraq.

Well, Saudi Arabia could not have picked better had it been allowed to appoint him directly.

Two central findings of whatever James Baker finds will be:

1) "Extremism" threatens the Sunni regimes of our allies, our staunch allies, our staunchiest of allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt (the first has almost all the money in the world, the second two, for some reason, must receive money, however, not from Saudi Arabia but from the United States) and in order to dampen the appeal of that "extremism" -- especially of the bad Shi'a variety (Sunni variety not so bad, you see) -- is to push Israel to accept that "two-state-solution" which is obviously a "solution" becuase that is what it is called, and no one would be stupid enough to call something a "solution" if it wasn't one, would they?

2) The Representative of the United States and of Saudi Arabia (hon.) may well conclude that "we are seen as too pro-Shi'a" and must make sure that we either force the Shi'a in Iraq to be much more accommodating to Sunni demands, or that we remain in Iraq, no longer to train so many new Shi'a recruits, but rather to protect the Sunnis. Yes, protect the Sunnis.

Perhaps James Baker will surprise us all. Perhaps he will show some smidgen of patriotism. Perhaps he has begun to feel, somewhere in his mercenary Baker & Botts self-glorifying ("The Baker Institute" headed by the comical Edward Djerijian, who I am convinced has never heard the words "hadith" and "sira," for he knows nothing about Islam, and certainly not why it might be of any conceivable relevance) heart, time to give an unbillable few weeks to really learning what Saudi Arabia -- not Prince so-and-so, not the people who smile at him and wave the contracts and pay the invoices -- but the real Saudis, who must be understood, are all about. And in the same way, Baker must understand the real Pakistan, and not merely the unrepresentative representative Musharraf, the real Jordanians, not merely Deerfield-wrestling-team Abdullah, the real inhabitants of Fallujah, Baghdad, Diwaniya, and Najaf, not Ahmad Chalabi, Kanan Makiya, and Rend al-Rahim Francke, the real representatives of Iran, not Mrs. Nafisi, nor even Shirin Ebadi.

I don't think James Baker, the fixer, is capable of it. He doesn't take ideas seriously. He doesn't take the belief-system of Islam seriously. He is convinced the world can be handled when he, and people just like him, as he perceives them -- the Al-Saud family, such as smiling Prince Bandar -- get down to business, and make their deals. That will not work. Western civilization, of which James Baker is a most unimpressive part, the billable-minute part, the part that thinks of a museum as a place to hold a reception, for clients or new associates, and who I doubt has read a book on Islam in his life. He knows what he wants to know, and will not learn what he does not want to know.

Expect nothing good or intelligent to come from James Baker about Iraq. He will be looking out for Saudi -- that is, Sunni -- interests. He will not be looking for ways to divide, demoralize, and weaken both Sunnis and Shi'a indifferently. He will certainly not do anything to encourage the idea of an independent Kurdistan (he'll be muttering all the way about "but the Turks will never accept it") because to the Arabs, any notion of non-Arab Muslmis becoming independent of the Arabs is intolerable -- so it will be intolerable for James Baker.

James Baker has been in the Saudi corner for decades, and has seen no reason -- don't bother him with the islamization of Western Europe, for god's sake -- why would James Baker pay any attention to that? What's Europe to a philistine like James Baker?

We need a clever statesman, who sees everything, who knows everything. Instead, we get a cunning fixer, of the most banal kind.

Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 1:06 PM

Yes but if the republicans pull out it will be a big moral blow. Especially for the republicans but for the whole america psychie. It will be interpreted as another war lost. A major war. This just cant be another vietnam. Let the americans bomb and kill extra terrorists while we enjoy the sunni and shia blowing eachother up. Then when it dies down a bit you can pull out and pretend like you won, it doesnt really matter, just get out of there and watch them continue to blow eachother up in even greater numbers.

Posted by: bff at September 13, 2006 1:14 PM

The times have changed, always in motion the future.

If we pulled out now, Iran would take over, in one "peace" form, by force another. And it would not take years, Iraq is in no position to stop Iran as they were in the 80's-90's. Many would be killed, but it would end quickly. Suni's that fight would be brought under control without rules or mercy.

The U.N. would write more angry letters.

Then, you would find the attention of the victor trained on a new foe. Sooner, before later.

Many things are wrong with the Iraq invasion, and our forces should be used for what is needed to secure our safety here, not sit and wait for somthing to happen. Many things should ,and still can be done to better secure the world right now while we are there, this chance is gone after we leave. The future is still in motion.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 13, 2006 1:18 PM

george_rem wrote: "I was just pointing out that Iran, as you of course know very well, is not Arab."

and your point?

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at September 13, 2006 1:20 PM

Hugh said

Just the other day Cheney announced that "even if it had been known" that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he would still have supported the invasion of Iraq. Why?

Why? Is it that under the gruff exterior that Cheney puts on there is a starry-eyed idealist, who wants to help the poor and noble Iraqi people out of the goodness of his heart, since they deserve to share the fruits of our society's labor: freedom, democracy, and so on.

Or, is it not stars in his eyes, but dollar signs? There are literally mountains of no-bid-contract dollars to be earned there by someone, that's for sure.

Or, is it hubris, that the Administration has figured out the whole Middle East mess where no-one else could? All they need is a chance, just a little friendly nudge, and Iraq will joyfully blossom into a unified, pluralistic, democratic nation? Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds, and the rest will all hold hands as they enter a new age of peace and prosperity. The shining example of Iraq would then cause all the other Middle Eastern terroracries to fall one by one, because we all know that all people in all nations want to emulate us and our values, right?

Why? Our soldiers are dying to know.

Instead of being used to repair and upgrade and improve Iraqi roads and bridges and powerlines and water treatment plants, couldn't that money (how many billions are we up to?) be better spent here at home, perhaps funding the building of secure borders? Or to give us the ability to scan cargo coming into our ports?

Instead of deploying our troops in Iraq to "help" the Iraqi people to understand the joys of democracy and protecting the "vast majority of moderates" from the "few extremists", couldn't they be of more use in, say, tracking down and killing Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in Waziristan (northern Pakistan)?

Posted by: special_guest at September 13, 2006 1:27 PM

I would be pleased if Iraq and Iran both were turned into large areas of glass tomorrow.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 13, 2006 1:55 PM

I hope Hugh's piece on jimmy "f*ck the Jews" baker get expanded into a full-fledged tribute.

Something else for jimmy to mull over; without the Israeli scapegoat in the ME, the house of al-saud, like the palaces of mubarak and assad, would be in mortal danger from all those idle, restive natives. The al-saud should be thankful for whatever support the U.S. gives Israel.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 13, 2006 1:56 PM

Addendum to the posting on James Baker:

Baker was last visibly involved in Iraq when he went on that famous debt-cancellation tour. Remember? He managed to get the Western, Infidel powers to agree to cancelling nearly $100 billion in debts owed by Iraq. Why the cancellation of $100 billion in debts by a Muslim state to non-Muslim creditors, yet one more transfer of wealth from the Camp of Infidels to the Camp of Islam beyond the ten trillion dollars in OPEC revenues since 1973, should have been considered a triumph of American diplomacy, as Bush and Baker both seemed to think, is strange. Of course Baker then tried to get the Arab countries to cancel Iraq's debts. Vague promises, smiles, and then, of course, as is so often the case, nothing at all. Everyone, most of all James Baker, seems to have forgotten that; while Infidels were expected to, and did, forgive Iraq's debts, fellow Muslims were not forthcoming. One wonders if this time Baker will again get some assurances from the Saudis -- "if only the Americans stay and make sure that the Shi'a crescent which threats the stability of the Middle East, and therefore oil, does not develop into a real threat." Oh, you can write the Sunni, or rather Saudi, script (with echoes by Mubarak and King Abdullah -- they'll be chiming in, don't worry) yourself.

All so obvious. All so transparent.

But not obvious, not transparent, to James Baker, or to others so willing to receive their reality, and their marching orders, from the Al-Saud, the Al-Thani, the Al-Maktoum, the Al-this and Al-that.

While in Iraq James Baker will seek, while in Baghdad, the "wise counsel" of that "Sunni elder statesman" Adnan Pachachi -- about whom you can find out more by googling "Adnan Pachachi" and "J. B. Kelly" and "Posted by Hugh." Just keep your eyes peeled. And you know what Adnan Pachachi will tell him. He'll tell him "You Americans got us all into a fix. You Americans helped cause the rise of the Shi'a crescent. And now it's up to you Americans to protect Sunni interests in Iraq because....because just imagine if the Shi'a took over. We need weapons. We need money. We need training. We need logistical support. You owe it to us."

Oh, something like that.

Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 1:59 PM

Could it be perhaps that Iraq is being held as a staging ground for future operations in the Middle East? That might explain the administrations reluctance to leave the area.

That being said, I have no problem with any sort of Islamic infighting that depletes their cash, resources and populations.

Posted by: s at September 13, 2006 2:38 PM

It was a sad day, indeed, when that war ended. Like the SA fighting the SS.

Seymour
I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully, in my sleep; not like his passengers, screaming in terror.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at September 13, 2006 3:05 PM

I THINK THE UN INTERFERRED.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at September 13, 2006 3:27 PM

I THINK THE UN INTERFERRED[sic].

Well, yeah.

Didn't you know?

Uninvited
Nuisance

Posted by: Eisenhund at September 13, 2006 4:32 PM

Seymour Paine, the perfect analogy . . . 'kind of like the SA fighting the SS.' To complete the Roehm purge analogy of SS men knifing the SA men--how about sending in a squad of Jews to keep the peace between these two 'strains' of nazis?

For this is the analogy here in Iraq. Send in good, green American kids, a little wet behind the ears, naive in that distinctly good American way, wanting to do good, but ending up dead, or maimed. Dead or maimed as a result of bringing peace to Iraq, democracy to the Arab World, acting as a wedge at times, keeping the Shias and Sunni from an all out civil war, or at least at the simply simmering stage. Our boys deserve better. Bush is LBJ. Good men, but unwilling to admit their mistakes; because th is admission would unravel everything(most important for them in their own minds). Why did these Americans have to die? Why 2600 plus Americans will never breath fresh air of sweet America? To bring democracy, foment civilization, pluralism, liberalism, reform Islam? Much easier to tack a bit this way or that, a few more troops now, but a few less in 12 or 18 months, obscuring the big picture 'for generations.' What tragedy. What folly.

I see Bush hugging the families of the 911 victims. I see his emotion. I know he is a good human being. Yet, I also see a highly flawed man, unwilling to admit his fundamental mistake. To cloud or equate 'killing terrorists' and 'bringing democracy to Iraq' is pathetic. Killing terrorists, protecting our homeland, standing strong on immigration(especially our borders) is one thing; bringing democracy to Islam it quite another 'thing.' At the end of the day, if W 'wakes up' in the morning, or in twelve months, or if the next President wakes up in 10 years and brings the boys home, I believe with all my heart, they will be spat at and laughted at when we leave. No matter how much money, blood and treasure is left behind on the unforgiving killing fields of "Iraq."

On another front, however, viva la Kurdistan! Stick a rotten tooth in the heart of the Sunnis. Another fly in the Arab ointment; the 'other' Iraq. I love it.

Posted by: biorabbi at September 13, 2006 4:38 PM

Oh, something like that. -from above;

In three years there will be cries for refugee status and relocation funds.

Posted by: limes at September 13, 2006 4:41 PM

Bush is an absolute fool. Gives permission for a sworn enemy of democracy, a viscious murderer and liar, like katami to defile the home of Thomas Jefferson. Appoints jimmy "FTJ" baker to convey the wishes of al-saud (what's the matter, bandar's direct line to the White House not working?) The man is a complete idiot.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 13, 2006 4:52 PM

Hugh, you have done it again. Great job. We are spending blood (2700 lives) and treasure ($500+B) in Iraq to prevent chaos THAT ONLY BENEFITS US! At the same time, we are prevented from dealing with real threats like Pakistan (they have nukes people, and are one coup away from being controlled by Islamic terrorist co-conspirators) and Iran, toiling to get nukes. Redeploy the troops to Iraqi Kurdistan, and let Iraqi Sunnistan and Shiistan have at each other.

Posted by: ryoga at September 13, 2006 5:05 PM

IMHO:
I personally believe we are there to keep China from hoarding the oil like they did in iran.

China is using the muslims as proxies (ammo, money, silkworm missiles etc.) I believe the purpose is to control the oil as it is currently a strategic resource.

We are unable to name the enemy for who they really are without creating another front-line with china.

cheap chinese goods>chinese manufacturers>military manufacturers>arms and bullets to chinese allies (oil-bearing muslim countries)> ordinance fired at our Guys.

Posted by: squire at September 13, 2006 5:21 PM

Some find Bush's "emotion" appealing. I find it appalling (Volunteers for Stevenson, 1952 and 1956, please take note). The speech he gave the other night was sickening in its gush, having an effect opposite to the one intended.

"Moms and Dads" in the Middle East. "People just want freedom." "Why can't we all get along?" The Family of Man. World War II would not have been won had the kind of sentimentalism then have been in favor that is apparently in favor now, especially among the speechwriters of the current person taking a "leadership role."

Can't you imagine it? "The Germans yearn for freedom, just the way we all do. A tiny minority of extremists has taken over in Germany -- they do not represent anyone but themselves. We must carefully limit our anger to them." Etcetera etceterum.

Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 9:56 PM

Hugh:

Moms and Moms and Moms and Moms and Dads in the Middle East.

Cheers
Robert

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 13, 2006 9:59 PM

How far would 480 Billion essentially pissed away in these conflicts gone twards energy independance for the United States? Nuclear power stations outside every city, Electric car recharge stations, grants for electrics to rid us of the chicken egg scenario moving twards electric presents? What would the Islamic world become when oil drops to $10 or lower per barrel becasue the west hardly uses it anymore? Would they have to look within finally?

How much appeal would sitting in a mosque all day long, formenting hate of infidels, jews, America, have when your GDP drops by 90%? Would you have to cast aside all this idle time and work to feed yourself?

Posted by: Zebo at September 13, 2006 10:33 PM

Hugh:
I know you have frequently argued that Iraq is a tarbaby and that our having deposed Saddam was a sufficient condition for our departure from that artificially wrought country. Had I the power and responsibility to make policy, I would certainly attempt to implement your recommendation that an independent Kurdish state be created, and I fully agree that an internecine, perpetual war between the Sunni and Shi'a Arabs would be in our interest. However, I remain troubled by the possibility that the Shi'a - who, after all, are in the majority -would be the victors in such a conflict, resulting in an oil-rich Iranian-dominated client state. If there were a way of maintaining the Shi'a-Sunni conflict within Iraq, so that no clear-cut winner ever emerges, I would be more comfortable with your argument that we should (after creating a defensible, independent Kurdish state) exit Iraq and let the two remaining factions kill each other forever.
But what if the Shi'a win? Then what?
What would mitigate the consequences of such an outcome would be (as someone, I believe, wrote elsewhere in this thread) our complete freedom from the need for OPEC oil. This, actually, is quite doable, even in the near-term, as we have large oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, as yet untapped (with new oil fields just discovered by Chevron), plus vast reserves in the Alberta tar sands, plus vast supplies of coal that can be converted into petroleum - the Nazis had the technology to do this in the 1930's, and used it then; this technology, much refined, becomes cost-effective at $35 a barrel.
But as long as we continue our ill-conceived and utterly unnecessary dependence on Arab/Muslim oil, I do not know if leaving Iraq to probable Shi'ite domination is advisable. Can you offer any reassuring comments to bolster your argument? This would be appreciated.

Posted by: commonsense at September 14, 2006 1:23 AM