| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Imagine a report from 1944: "This just in: the invasion of Normandy has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe." Leaving aside the question of whether or not the attempt to democratize Iraq is the best way to defeat the jihad, the idea that resisting the jihadists is inadvisable because it causes them to fight back is beyond asinine. What do these "spies" expect? That the jihadists would crumble at the first sign of resistance?
"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight," from the Bandar Beacon, aka the Washington Post, with thanks to all who sent this in:
The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.
"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."
Obvious. Is that what it is? If the report had argued that Iraq has weakened the U.S. position because we are effectively abetting an Iranian-backed Shi'ite takeover of the country, and thus aiding rather than weakening the global jihad, that would be a defensible, indeed a cogent, position. But instead, the report just seems to be noting that Iraq has become the latest pretext for jihad recruitment, and buys into the false assumption that if we just address the pretext, the jihad will end. It won't, however. It will just find another pretext, because ultimately the jihad is not being waged because of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Abu Ghraib, or Israel, or any other commonly-retailed pretext. It is being waged to extend Sharia over the world, in accord with imperatives spelled out in the Qur'an and other core Islamic sources.
Posted by Robert at September 25, 2006 11:43 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"Obvious. Is that what it is?"
Yes, I think it is obvious. And it's obvious that Saddam Hussein dressed like a 1930's style American gangster because he was an apostate to wahabiism and salafiism.
Saddam Hussein had the same enemies as the USA and he knew how to get medieval on their asses.
Earlier administrations knew that Saddam could be useful and schmoozed him.
Iraq is a jihadi training ground. It's very obvious.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 25, 2006 12:29 PM
Our government agencies still think this is a "war on terror." If you proceed from an ignorant premise, you end up with ignorant, and useless, conclusions.
Aside from its breathtaking ignorance, this report looks like another election year political hit job on the President from leftist malcontents within the intelligence establishment, just like the fabricated Niger/Wilson/Plame affair. Utterly shameful.
Posted by: Stendec
at September 25, 2006 12:34 PM
"If the report had argued that Iraq has weakened the U.S. position because we are effectively abetting an Iranian-backed Shi'ite takeover of the country, and thus aiding rather than weakening the global jihad, that would be a defensible, indeed a cogent, position."-Robert
The report may in fact be saying just that, but for polittical reasons that must be said between the lines. The report may be saying: Look, we were ignorant re Islam, we thought the answer to the Jihad problem was to empower the average person in a democratic society where public opinion matters, and do battle against "radical" islam, but it backfired, the problem is systemic because of Islam, so the best we can do is take ourselves out of the picture and let Islam take its course and contain the violence.
The report is not going to be blunt and say: the policy of the Administration is a total failure. It will not do that obvious political reasons.
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2006 12:39 PM
Imagine a report from 1944: "This just in: the invasion of Normandy has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe."
Hilarious.
But even the paper that I read (said to be "conservative") doesn't get it.
Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO
at September 25, 2006 12:40 PM
Excellent post Robert! I really enjoy the site an am growing in knowledge daily. Thank you for standing the wall in this global struggle. If we pray to Father God, HE gives us the Wisdom to continue the work HE has called us to!! Its obvious that your Herculean efforts over the years, against all odds, is NOW having a significant impact in the corporate awareness of so many Americans and others around the World! KUTGW! So important to REFOCUS the focus on the GLOBAL aspect of the War and not on the region or state. The Holy Spirit has been speaking to my heart for about a year now about this being WWIII way before Newt and others have said. I and, Im sure, several other posters Pray for your safety daily.
Thanks again
guide inside
at September 25, 2006 12:44 PM
Why compare this to the "Normandy Invasion."? Last time I checked, our ally, the "Good Guys" were "The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution." Acronym: SCARI. Yes, it's scary all right. Who would have thought, post-9-11 that we'd be sending young American men and women to die in the cause of "Islamic Revolution."
Who do you like better? Shiites or Sunni?
I say "a pox on both their houses."
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 25, 2006 12:44 PM
Australia's prime-minister Howard rejects this moon-battish stuff:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/world/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060925/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksiraqintelligenceaustralia
Never been prouder to be an Australian!
at September 25, 2006 12:48 PM
The report may be saying exactly what Fitzgerald has been saying for some time. Our presence makes us the focal point of violence, our absence will result in civil war: better that they kill each other than that they kill us.
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2006 12:51 PM
This article is the best evidence yet that US public schools are not teaching critical thinking skills. The garbage the American public swallows! Along with all the "journalists" who write it.
Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at September 25, 2006 12:59 PM
It will just find another pretext, because ultimately the jihad is not being waged because of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Abu Ghraib, or Israel, or any other commonly-retailed pretext. It is being waged to extend Sharia over the world, in accord with imperatives spelled out in the Qur'an and other core Islamic sources.
Posted by Robert.
This is exactly correct Robert!!! I keep trying to explain this theory to my hard core liberal friends, who insist the problem with Islam stems from the war in Iraq. No matter how hard I try to explain, they just can't see the big picture in that the ultimate goal of Muslims is to take over the entire world. They use Iraq, our support of Israel, the Pope or something else as an excuse for their violence.
Posted by: Bonniea at September 25, 2006 1:00 PM
Frank, no matter what now, we are the focal point, and forever will be, along with anyone else who believes a in free society. I will not live by the rules of Muslims, because I am scared that every time we something about the EVIL Mohammed, there will be violence in the streets. The ultimate goal of these devil worshippers is to rule the world with their laws. Believe you me, they won't forget about us and Israel, and Europe, because of the many Muslims living around the world.
Posted by: Gotham at September 25, 2006 1:01 PM
"If the report had argued that Iraq has weakened the U.S. position because we are effectively abetting an Iranian-backed Shi'ite takeover of the country, and thus aiding rather than weakening the global jihad, that would be a defensible, indeed a cogent, position."
-- from Robert's comment above
Or if the report had argued that while the initial invasion of Iraq in order to scour for major weapons and disrupt relevant weapons projects was rational, remaining in Iraq, attempting to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to warring sectarian and ethnic parties when their mistrust, propensity for violence, inability to compromise, all of which has its roots in the attitudes and atmospherics naturally arising in societies suffused with Islam, was not only a mistake, but the very opposite of what, at this point, the Americans should wish to be doing. They should not be trying to improve the situation, to make things better, for Islamic societies, but to divide and demoralize them, wherever possible (and not by doing anything -- malign neglect will do the trick), so as to buy time for the Infidels to view these "demonstration projects" and come to their own conclusions.
There is much that is wrong with Iraq. And it is even true, no doubt, that it serves as a recruiting tool -- but so does everything else. The Pope, Israel, the Thai army, the Danish cartoons, the English police raids, the refusal to permit the hijab, the continued existence of Coptic Churches in Egypt, the new prep school being founded by King Abdullah on the Deerfield model, so very inattentive to Qur'anic memorization, so much more attentive to English, biology, and lacrosse, the failure of the Italian authorities to remove anti-Muhammad Dante from teh school curriculum, the failure of this or that country to remove absolutely every conceivable obstacle to the campaigns of Da'wa, the insistence in some countries that the local laws --such as those about polygamy -- be obseved, the insistence that Muslims should take oaths of allegiance to the local Infidel nation-state when that contravenes, insults even, the principle of sole loyalty owed by Muslims to Islam and to fellow Muslims.
Yesteday it was bases in Saudi Arabia. Today it may be Iraq. Tomorrow it may be bases in Kuwait or Qatar. It may be attempts to jam broadcasts, or prevent reception, of such menacing organs of the Ikhwan as al-Jazeera.
The report, one assumes, nowhere suggests that the situation of turmoil in Iraq is not to be deplored but welcomed, and that the real foolishenss of the Bush Administrationb is the stubborn refusal of so many, taking their cue from Bush himself, who prides himself on his stubbornness, which he regards as a sterling quality, one he delights in polishing every day -- at the expense of the American taxpayers, the American army, and American interests in weakening the world-wide camp of Islam, not in making Iraq that Light Unto the Muslim Nations that Bush continues to hallucinate so maddeningly about, and so do those in his claque, who can no longer think straight. And of course, those who hate him are, alas, haters for all the wrong reasons, and even -- if such is possible -- even more wrong-headed than Bush.
at September 25, 2006 1:02 PM
Im all for it as long as as an end to fight goes hand in hand with 100 % expulsion of western counties of all muslims natural born and invaders . send them to jordan and then end muslim crossing any border ever.
The immiogration jihad is worse than bombs going off
at September 25, 2006 1:05 PM
I put the invasion of iraq at about number 6 on my top 10 of what radicalizes muslims:
1) Cartoonists
2) The Pope
3) Supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980's
4) Sanctioning Iraq in the 1990's
5) Salman Rushdie
6) Removing Saddam Hussein from Power
7) Flushing Korans down the toilet
8) The invasion of Afghanistan
9) Satellite TV broadcasts of Baywatch
10) The success of 9/11
at September 25, 2006 1:07 PM
Intelligence Agencies Report on jihad recruiting....
While the Iraq/Afghanistan wars may account for some of the rise in recruiting for Islamic militants, the conclusions in the intelligence report simply defy both history and logic.
Radical Muslim bombings of US embassies in the 1990’s and the horrific events of 9/11 occurred well before the invasion of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Making such an argument is akin to suggesting that the Crusades were the cause of the Islamic invasions of non-Muslim lands in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries that were, in fact, initiated hundreds of years later in response to these transgressions.
Throughout history, Islamic empire builders knew full well that the establishment of the universal umma could not be realized by peaceful means alone, just as the original umma had only been created through the relentless military campaigns of the Prophet and the orthodox caliphs.
To quote Sayyid Qutb, “The establishment of Allah’s kingdom on earth, the elimination of the reign of man, the wresting of sovereignty from the usurpers and its restoration to Allah, and the abolition of human laws and the implementation of divine law (Shari’ a) cannot only be achieved through sermons and preaching……Those who have usurped Allah’s authority on earth and have enslaved His creatures will not surrender their power merely through preaching … This is why Allah has established only one cause for killing - where there is no other recourse – and that is striving for the sake of God (jihad) and imposed this sacred duty on all Muslims, not as a means to convert individuals or communities to Islam, but as the foremost tool to establish Allah’s sovereignty on earth.
The only rational conclusion in all of this is that radical Islam will always find excuses to justify their violent behavior.
OHara
Posted by: OHara at September 25, 2006 1:15 PM
"The establishment of Allah’s kingdom on earth"
..I'm confused
Is it Sunni-side up or Shiite-side up?
These darn islamologists always forget to clarify that point.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 25, 2006 1:19 PM
Imagine a report from 1944: "This just in: the invasion of Normandy has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe."
Great analogy.
The falsity of the Intelligence Estimate is that the Moslem populations in are not militarized. Well, if they accept the Koran and the Sunnah every adult Iraqui is militarized. It’s just a matter activity level.
But the Estimate is no doubt right that the coalition’s selfless effort to save the Moslems in Iraq from themselves and give them a shot at civilized living has activated many Moslems around the world.
After all, the notion of truth, democracy, freedom, and justice is enough to activate any Moslem worth his prayer rug. They hate that stuff. Literally.
at September 25, 2006 1:27 PM
"The report, one assumes, nowhere suggests that the situation of turmoil in Iraq is not to be deplored but welcomed..."
Hugh-
A report that is likely to be a very public document is not going to say that. It's possible much of what you have been saying re Iraq may be said between the lines. It would appear the report is not addressing the problem of jihad in general, but the particular problem of Jihad in Iraq. It will be read as a report re Iraq.
The report appears to be saying the only thing holding jihadists together is their mutual hate for the US and getting out of the picture is in our interests. If we are all that holds the enemy together, the report implies civil war will occur once we are gone, and that that may not be unwelcome.
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2006 1:35 PM
"And of course, those who hate him are, alas, haters for all the wrong reasons, and even -- if such is possible -- even more wrong-headed than Bush."
The problem is we can't get out. Period. It's like a Chinese finger trap. I agree the anti-Bushies are brain-dead, but when I hear Bush talk about "winning the war on terror in Iraq" I realize we're screwed. This is a president who thought that Afghanistan would be a slum dunk.
There's no credibility left to the foreign policy of this administration. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.
at September 25, 2006 1:44 PM
"Frank, no matter what now, we are the focal point, and forever will be, along with anyone else who believes a in free society."
Gotham- I see your point, but what may be true in general ("we are the focal point and forever will be, along with anyone else who believes a in free society") is not necessarily true in Iraq. The report implies civil war in Iraq after we are not the focal point that holds the enemy together. The report is re Iraq. The general picture may require an aggressive response, but that may not be true in Iraq. A non-aggressive response may be better in Iraq, but not elsewhere-depending on circumstances and what is in our interests.
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2006 1:59 PM
You can't have it both ways:be against this Iraq fiasco yet claim it doesn't increase Muslim resentment and terrorism. Afghanistan is remote, primitive, non-Arab, so attacking there didn't cause 1/100th the resentment as invading the heart of the old Islamic(and pre-Islamic) Iraq. If you want to ignore the nationalistic element to the resistance of the Iraq war, you are as dumb as Bush. Obviously, plenty of people differ.
Posted by: Dumbo at September 25, 2006 2:01 PM
"Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight"
Is that proposition true or false?
The proposition addresses the particular, not the general. The proposition does not question an aggressive response in general, but questions it in Iraq.
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2006 2:18 PM
This is a bit off topic but has anyone read whats being said on the sky news blogg. Iv been reading but I feel out of my depth.
http://adamboulton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/the_pope_and_th.html#comments
the thred called pope and the prophet. Its heavy for a mainstreem media blogg.
at September 25, 2006 2:19 PM
There is a childish petulance among today's baby-boomer generation, born of ignorance about Islam, ignorance about history, ignorance about war. That everything must be accomplished decisively, quickly, cheaply and painlessly, or else the baby-boomers get antsy. Our elected officials pander to this by offering soothing words and rosy scenarios rather than the hard facts, no matter how grim those facts may be.
Among the many lessons of history that have apparently been forgotten (along with the futility of appeasement and the 1,400 year history of Islamic expansionism) has been the elementary fact that things often get worse before they get better.
In 1939, Britain and France finally declared war against Nazi Germany. One year later, Germany had conquered Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg--and France. Arguably Britain was in a worse strategic position one year after going to war than before. But times change. Britain eventually turned the tide--because their cause was just and there was no other choice.
Now if this National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated openly that any attempt to engage Islamic jihadists anywhere on earth, whether militarily or (as we have seen) even by rhetoric, may bring down the wrath of the entire worldwide Muslim Umma on your head, they would have a valid point. But that doesn't seem to have been their argument.
at September 25, 2006 2:29 PM
This insane notion that we must not do anything that will 'further' enrage the mahometans has always be counterproductive for the Infidels. But when the Israelis dispatched yassin to the infernal regions, for example, the rate of mahometan attacks decreased, not increased. How much more can they hate us than they do already?
In fact, they are so easily enraged, the West should make good sport of it. More cartoons, more koran-in-the-toilet stories (real ones, this time), more insults. Perhaps the imams will spontaneously combust.
Posted by: Infidel33 at September 25, 2006 2:29 PM
NEWS FLASH!! THIS JUST IN!! THE ENEMY HATES US!!
I am just stupefied that the best our government can do is to waste our taxes on such vapid, sophomoric, clueless, totally retarded analyses that they portray as strategic assessments of the war in Iraq.
at September 25, 2006 2:41 PM
Im all for it as long as as an end to fight goes hand in hand with 100 % expulsion of western counties of all muslims natural born and invaders . send them to jordan and then end muslim crossing any border ever.
The immiogration jihad is worse than bombs going off
Posted by: KAOSKTRL
You summed it up.
I can't believe I am hearing some UCLA prof prattling on how unfair the Israelis are to the poor palis - MY TAX MONIES ARE PAYING FOR THIS GARBAGE!!!!
Posted by: germaninamerica at September 25, 2006 2:42 PM
Frank,
If Bush really believed what Hugh is advocating, he would be more receptive to the proposal by Senator Joe Biden to partition Iraq into three autonomous regions: Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd (with the oil held in a trust jointly by all three regions). U.S. forces would be redeployed to the Kurdish region, which is likely to be the friendliest (such as it is) to U.S. interests. Essentially, Bush should admit the futility of trying to get the Kurd and the Shi'a and the Sunni to lie down with one another peacefully as brothers in the one country called "democratic Iraq," and let them go their separate ways.
Analogy: After the brute Communist yoke was removed, Yugoslavia fragmented along ethnic lines. The Clinton Administration believed that the violence among the principalities (Serbia, Bosnia, etc.) was "destabilizing" to southern Europe and so NATO intervened to halt the violence. Whether that was the right thing to do is questionable. What is unquestionable, however, is that attempting to use NATO or U.S. force to put Yugoslavia back together into a single nation, a "model democracy," would have been an exercise in futility and a vast waste of Western resources. The Balkans ended up "balkanized." So be it.
What is the point of trying to make the Kurdish, Shi'a and Sunni peoples find a way to live together under some single democratic but weak government that won't even be able to maintain law and order without U.S. military force? Even if that goal can be achieved, what magical results come about from this? Does the whole Middle Eastern Muslim world suddenly say "Oh, wow, democracy is so cool, we want democracy in our countries too?" Why hasn't Turkey been a sufficient existence proof for them about Islamic democracy all these decades? With all its faults, Turkey is light-years ahead of Iran or Saudi Arabia, yet we haven't seen Muslims rushing to emulate the Turkish example.
at September 25, 2006 2:47 PM
Islamic and Western societies are not compatible. Friction caused by Iraq-type operations brings the day of acknowledgement closer, to our benefit.
Iran threatens to send tens of thousands of suicide bombers against western targets if it is struck. The sooner they attempt this attack, the better it is for western interests. Until they, or someone else tries something like this, Islam will be allowed to slowly permeate Western civilization. If you run the numbers (assuming 3.5 kids per European Muslim female vs. 1.4 for native Europeans and 100,000 new arrivals per year); France will become majority Muslim sometime between 2050 and 2060.
Let the GBU-37s fly to eliminate the short-term Iranian nuclear threat. The West is awakening to the fact that Iran’s response will not be our fault and there will be no need for self-flagellation. We’ll manage the consequences. The alternative is a slow smothering of our hard-won value system.
at September 25, 2006 2:54 PM
"Bush should admit the futility of trying to get the Kurd and the Shi'a and the Sunni to lie down with one another peacefully as brothers in the one country called "democratic Iraq," and let them go their separate ways."-Stephen L.
He can't admit that for political reasons. That would be the Democratic commercial of the century. However, the Administration may see things much differently now than in 2003. The premise of Administration policy is flawed because of Islam which requires Sharia law.
I did not realize that in 2003, though I see it now. I'll bet many of the folks who made policy in 2003 didn't see it either. Granted, they should know better than the average guy (folks like me), but they often don't know more than the average guy. (Do you think Condi or Bush knows more than Fitzgerald on this?-or even as much as much as Infidel Pride, Storagemanager, or Stephen L.etc.?)
The president is in a tough spot. I think he and the Administration see what some folks at JihadWatch saw some time ago.
at September 25, 2006 3:07 PM
The powers that be just don't get it.
Let us all get out our Korans and learn the philosophy of our future masters. Either that or learn to die well because the West must truly be in decline.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 25, 2006 3:20 PM
First off, ANOTHER Democratically leaked intelligance report. Political aspirations, not national security.
Secondly, the report misses the fact that we now live in a immoral vacuum. Wrong will grow and do what ever it wants to. And Right no longer has a leg to stand on. In our humanist world we are to accept Right as relative, not absolute.
So, in an absolute world we are right to attack our enemy. In a relative world, right is not right, if we create more enemy and isolate those nations that are not willing to defend themselves.
at September 25, 2006 3:24 PM
Intelligence assesment.
Product of our government: Product should be suspect of being defective.
The underlayment of this is Islam. This is a "clue" to our governmental intelligence types.
If we can keep publishing cartoons about MO and Islam, we will enrage the Muslims so much that something will have to be done about it.
Cartoon away.
Posted by: credit man at September 25, 2006 3:28 PM
When the profit mahomet set out to rob, rape, and murder the innocent farmers at the Khaybar oasis, we waited for a provocation. When none came, he attacked nevertheless, and his gang of thugs invented a pretext for the attack after the fact. So it is today. The REASON is islam, period. The pretext can be anything these vicious bastards care to dream up. What if the Banu Nadir had, instead of going about their daily farming chores, actually set out to ambush and battle mahomet's gang of murderers and thieves. Would they have been treated any MORE severely than they were anyway? NOT to resist the jihad is what will really embolden these savages.
Posted by: Infidel33 at September 25, 2006 3:29 PM
You cannot compare the invasion of Normandy with the invasion of Iraq. That is a total misrepresentation of the war in Iraq and to those who died on those beaches in Normandy.
“the idea that resisting the jihadists is inadvisable because it causes them to fight back is beyond asinine.”
Just where do they suggest that? I didn't get that out of it.
Also Robert, I know you know that the Iraqi had nothing to do with 9/11. We attacked the wrong country for all the wrong reasons.
I usually agree with you Robert, but to fail to recognize how the fiasco that is Iraq does anything but exasperate the problem seems like you're turning a blind eye to the obvious. The administration has failed us in this war (war on terrorism) and done terrible damage to our ability to react to real threats by wasting men, money, and equipment in Iraq.
We aren't going to defeat the Jihadists by believing our own B.S.
Posted by: f.g. at September 25, 2006 3:29 PM
My friends I have come to a decision that in order to protect myself and my family I have decided to convert to Islam. I've decided that it is too risky to stay a Christian.
I remembered the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and how everyone was assimilated into the group consciousness. Imagine if you gave in now. Who knows maybe when everyone is Islamic you could say "I was Islamic before Islamic was cool". You might even get a good job and special favors in the re-education camp.
So I am asking that you join me in converting now before it is too late ... and we get you later!!!
And as a side benefit you anarchists can join and cause anarchy within it's ranks.
Amen
Posted by: Mekoots at September 25, 2006 3:37 PM
The greatest danger to Jihadists is the non-Muslim public awareness that the Koran is considered dictation from God, that Islam is the only major religion on earth that mandates violence against unbelievers, that Muslim scriptures (because they are believed dictation from God) are not subject to interpretation, as are the scriptures of other religions. The Koran is not like the Bible book of Joshua. The Koran is not a story. When God says kill the unbeliever in the Koran-that's what God means as per "true Islam".
The knowledge referenced above is making folks and policy makers look at Islam more realistically. That is why groups like CAIR are so desperate to silence people like Robert and JihadWatch.
Posted by: Frank at September 25, 2006 3:37 PM
The Iraq war has taught us much. It has shown, at least to those who wish to see, it is not the people of Iraq that can't get along, work togeather. The trouble is the sects of ISLAM. If Islam was removed as a vote in this, you would have sucess.
As far as fighting, we have done little in the way of it for years. We are now just targets, waiting for something to happen. A few battles here and there.
Getting out of Iraq, leaving it the way it is, or is going as of now, will end with a bigger threat from Islam. Any battle after we leave will be over quickly. This is now 2006, not 1991. Iraq is being taken under control by Iran, much like Lebanon is with Hezb..
Leaving Iraq may give a moment of rest, but leaves Islam stronger and intact in the aftermath.
Surely somthing outside the box can be considered before we leave?
Great post above, and read, from Robert ..
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 25, 2006 3:42 PM
if fighting in Iraq is causing more terrorist, what caused all the muslim attacks in the Clinton 90's?
l mean with the first WorldTrade attacks, Cole, embassies, what caused all these muslim attacks.. the most simple thread for these causes is "ISLAM".
at September 25, 2006 3:45 PM
Perhaps there is critical commentary in the unreported (unleaked) parts within the NIE concerning exactly how the "terrorists" have used various media (U.S. and Iraqi) to spread their ideology, have, through manipulative propaganda, elicited foreign sympathy and funding for their cause, and have gone about recruiting their cells and combat soldiers.
One would expect to find within the NIE some kind of analysis on the effectiveness of our counter-propaganda campaign. Do we have one? I think I know the answer.
When we invaded Iraq, we bestowed upon them a free press. What did the Iraqis promulgate with their free press? Islam, Islam, and more Islam.
The Iraq we see today is a failure of Islam. The daily Iraqi barbarity illustrates, for all to see (while there still is a free press--not for much longer), what an Islamic society is really like when it is not hidden from view by an imam-controlled press.
We must wake up to the fact that Islam and democracy don't mix. We must understand that Islam ("submission") and freedom are incompatible ideas. Muslims don't want freedom. They categorically reject the ideas of "consent of the governed," religious and societal tolerance, and personal self restraint, which are essential to the functioning of a democracy.
If the West learns that one lesson, then the effort in Iraq will have been a success in the long run. We gave the Iraqis--a "modern" population living in the heart of the Middle East--every chance to shake their tyrannical bonds, and they completely failed--because of Islam.
In order to support our friends and demoralize our enemies, we need to make sure the world, including the Islamic world, clearly gets that message. It is only the truth after all. And the folks writing the NIE should be figuring out how well that message is getting out, and if not, why not.
at September 25, 2006 4:20 PM
Let's see.
Fighting terrorists creats more terrorists?
Use a larger weapon.
Since the Jhidists are always telling us about the Crusades, it must have been a fairly effective weapon.
Posted by: credit man at September 25, 2006 4:20 PM
@Mekoots
I'm way ahead of you man.
I figured out the other day that since a muslim is simply someone who submits their will to God, like Jesus (who was a muslim, right?)and since my old religion told me submit my will to God, that I already am a Muslim as are my former co-religionists.
BTW, forgot to ask, did you go sunni-side up or shiite side up?
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 25, 2006 4:22 PM
Who here has seen the great Martin Scorcese movie "CASINO"?
Remember when Joe Pesci narrates the opening part and says: "When are a bunch of hoodlums gonna get another chance to take over a money-making scheme like Las Vegas?
"Never.
"And what did they do?
"They fucked it up."
Is that not like the Muslims being handed the country of Iraq.
Same story. Same ending.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 25, 2006 4:28 PM
I cannot comprehend the obsession Americans have with WWII history. It is idiotic to compare D-Day to today's asymmetric conflicts.
You want to fight Jihadists? Volunteer to teach English in Pakistan and show them what your values are all about. Encourage your children to take a year off after college, travel the world, and get to know a couple more cultures rather than just watch Jackass II and get drunk on spring break. They'll enjoy it more than conscription.
Posted by: constantine at September 25, 2006 4:35 PM
OT, but you must see this video. I really needed a good laugh today, and the al-Mormon video has more than filled that need:
http://media.putfile.com/Al-Mormons
Posted by: libbysmom at September 25, 2006 4:36 PM
You guys want bacon or sausage with those or how about a side of good old bisquites and gravy
Posted by: guide inside at September 25, 2006 4:47 PM
I have my own National Intelligence Estimate; I estimate that there's not a single intellegent person in government.
"I cannot comprehend the obsession Americans have with WWII history.
It was the last war with a definable conclusion and clear cut danger if we lost. Besides, world wars don't come very often.
"Encourage your children to take a year off after college, travel the world, and get to know a couple more cultures ..."
Yeah, right. One does not have to live with crocodiles and stingrays to know that they are dangerous. One does not have to live with evil to know what evil is.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 25, 2006 4:54 PM
Two buscuits 'n sausage gravey. Two strips of bacon of course, smoked real good.
Posted by: credit man at September 25, 2006 5:01 PM
You cannot compare the invasion of Normandy with the invasion of Iraq. That is a total misrepresentation of the war in Iraq and to those who died on those beaches in Normandy. by FG
You really missed the point on that one.
Imagine a report from 1944: "This just in: the invasion of Normandy has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe."
Let me re-write that - This just in: Increased offinsive attacks by the Allies has led to increased Nazi activity in Europe.
There, get it now?
at September 25, 2006 5:07 PM
My father flew missions in World War II Asia. A flight navigator and Yale-trained radar expert in the "new" super-radar on the newly-built B29 heavy super-Hercules, he was one of the few people to have the knowledge he had.
Besides, he held the Air Force record for the simultaneous sending and receiving of Morse Code, making him a very valuable guy to have around in a crisis where instantaneous decisions had to be made.
People in his position were supposed to fly two months on/two months off because of the stress. But so many of them were getting killed that he flew 22 months straight.
Then he and some buddies got tired of all the stress, stole a B24 that sat at the end of the runway, and flew their pilot from Bombay to Calcutta one weekend just so he could see his girlfriend, an exploit he confessed to my mother only three years ago, after close to 60 years of marriage.
General Curtis LeMay was fit to be tied about it -- angry as hell -- but he couldn't court-martial any of them because he had no replacements for any of them. Which, of course, they knew before they gassed up the "old Jinny" and flew her across a SUBCONTINENT.
For years after the war, the sound of a large, noisy truck rendered my father ghostly white. It was something about the roar of the engine.
And what my father said to me the evening of 9/11 was that he knew my generation was a good lot, but he worried about us. We had never faced an enemy like this in our lifetime, not one we would have to know would try to take us on our own soil.
"My worry for you," he said, "is that sticking with it over the long haul is something you've never had to do. I worry for you," he said. "I just worry for you."
And, as this great article points out, the lens through which we see things is incredibly clouded, distorted now by the inexperience that is unique to our generation.
And part of me thinks it's the simple "Me-ism" we have as Americans -- the stupid solipsism and egocentrism that always says whatever we experience was CREATED by us alone and can be therefore be SOLVED by us alone -- with no cooperation from anyone else. It's all about us. It's always all about us. The world, the universe, reality is just a reflection of the ever-so important American consciousness and culture.
So if it's something wrong, it's our fault ... and if something's right nobody gets credit for that but us.
That's insane. Just insane.
And when I talked to my father the other night about how we constantly seem to be doing this, all he said was ...
"I worry for you. I just worry for you all the time."
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at September 25, 2006 5:35 PM
There is more to this than meets the eye. Why was the document leaked and by who? Especially before the upcoming election. The higher echelons of the US spy establishment are holdovers from the Clinton administration and are very liberal and partisan. IMHO, the muslims are not going to like us infidels no matter what we do. We have spent 500 billion dollars in Iraq and the insurgency is stronger now. We are going to spend 230 billion dollars in rebuilding southern Lebanon, all in the hopes of winning hearts and minds. Folks, it isn't about money or getting them to like us. Remember, we are infidels and all they want is to convert us or kill us.
Posted by: Caratacus at September 25, 2006 6:28 PM
I would like to comment on some of the withdrawal strategies expressed on this page.
While I accept the validity and logic of allowing sectarian violence to otherwise occupy Islamists and recognize it as a potentially useful strategy for amplifying their religious differences. Some aspects of this line of thinking worry me. I am perturbed for 2 reasons:
1) The empowerment it gives to those whose political ideologies in our own society have seen them ally with the Islamist cause (leftists/communists, surely an empowerment of these people within our own society at this critical time could prove lethal to the survival of our culture as we know it based on ideals of individual liberty, freedom of choice and conscience.)
2) The long term military consequences should such an action take place with out first de-fanging the Shia Mullochracy.
Surely the timing of this withdrawal maneuver is critical. To withdraw now will simply shift the balance of power towards the Shia Iranians and ultimately to the Muslim cause. Therefore the Iranian ability to project power across the region needs to be destroyed so that the ensuing unrest in Iraq is allowed to reach a level, by where it seriously degrades the international spread of Islam.
It is for this reason that I support the troops being in Iraq, playing nanny to the Iraqis is the price we have to pay to put into place and maintain the materials necessary to wage an effective war against Iran. This line of reasoning is obviously predicated on the fact that military confrontation with Iran is inevitable, which I believe it is. Therefore should we not reserve judgment on the current strategy until as such time we can better evaluate Iranian capabilities and what the long term consequences of the current crisis are going to be, also by doing so we do not give ammunition to the CodePink/Cindy Sheehan 5th column zombies.
Hugh and others can you convince me that pulling out of Iraq now will not significantly empower Iran to the detriment of our own security?
\armchair General mode off
at September 25, 2006 6:30 PM
The Jihadists will fight us wherever we go, but the questions remains why have we changed the mission from killing them in their backyard to providing them a roach motel in order to train tactically and improve their skills. I would like to see our military resources and soldiers applied more aggressively and intelligently.
I really don't see how they cannot turn ANYTHING we do into a recruitment video or twist any event from natural disasters to FEMA's despicable response to suit their dogma.
Posted by: amana39
at September 25, 2006 8:31 PM
Iran and Turkey Prepare for War in Iraqi Kurdistan
Source: DEBKAfile
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=1214
Posted by: SFOD at September 25, 2006 11:53 PM
Robert wrote: " the jihad is not being waged because of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Abu Ghraib, or Israel, or any other commonly-retailed pretext. It is being waged to extend Sharia over the world, in accord with imperatives spelled out in the Qur'an and other core Islamic sources."
How true Robert.
I believe that many Muslims are attempting to garner sympathy from the world by portraying the "insurgents" as innocent defenders of Islamic sovereignty against the "violent aggressors of the west", the United States and Great Britian.
Muslims want to export the notion that Islamic jihad is a response to aggression from the west and is completely justified.
Public opinion that favors Muslim interpretations of the Iraq war vis a vis the pro- war American interpretation will only garner support for jihadi causes and shift international allegiances squarely in the court of the Islamic world.
Muslims don't want the world to know that the the supremacist and violent theolgy of jihad is securely grounded into the ethos of the Koran, the inspiration for the world's most troublesome conflicts.
Posted by: Johnathan at September 26, 2006 12:15 AM
Morgaan; Just got back from a dinner with an old friend who has seen and done it all. We discussed the unsustainability of the status quo. Pick your issue; medicare, social security, Islam, the entitlement culture. Snapshots aren't applicable, rates are the metric. And the numbers don't add up.
I hate to be a pessimist. But our fathers have reason to be worried. The 'great experiment' may be facing forces that it is not equipped to deal with.
We ended our discussion with the conclusion that the responsibility for our families' welfare was our own. Here's to rural real estate and the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by: limes at September 26, 2006 1:38 AM
"The report may be saying exactly what Fitzgerald has been saying for some time. Our presence makes us the focal point of violence, our absence will result in civil war: better that they kill each other than that they kill us."
Either way we will be killed. We already have too many Muslims in this country, a too porous border, a fifth column peopled by head-up-their-ass Liberals, and impotent immigration laws.
We must maintain a presence in Iraq. How else can we "contain" the violence? Keeping pressure there occupies the enemy from placing their entire focus on our homeland. We also need a foothold in order to meet the impending war with Iran.
In the meantime, we need a domestic policy which will enact temporary draconian measures against Islam: Ban it. Deportation, internment camps, closed borders. It worked for our grandparents and it will work for us. When Islam is defeated, we will have to see if a moderate Islam can emerge after the war, and then we can lift the ban. If not, then there will be no Islam left anyway.
Posted by: atheling
at September 26, 2006 1:44 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why we are still wasting lives, time, and treasure in Iraq.
All of the "reasons" for the invasion were false except for toppling the Saddam regime. That took a week. It took a little longer to kill his nut-job sadist sons. It took a little longer than that to root Saddam out of his hole in the ground.
That should have been the end of the line. Pull our troops out, and let the place degenerate into a sectarian/civil war. Iran would invade and that would have tied up the Ahmadinnerjacket regime for years.
Send some of the troops to Afghanistan, and maybe find Osama (remember him?). Then pull out of there and let the warlords go back to doing what they have been doing for that last several thousand years: fighting each other.
In a way, the Afghans are kind of like the Scots: it is only when there is an external threat when the country unites and fights. Take away the threat and they go back to fighting each other.
Posted by: give me doughnuts at September 26, 2006 2:23 AM
In a way, the Afghans are kind of like the Scots: it is only when there is an external threat when the country unites and fights.
I appreciate the Scots can have a stubborn side but any kind of moral equivalence between the Scots and the Afghans is pushing the realms of credibility.
Give me Angus with a few pills and shots vs. Mohammed and Friday sermons any day.
To be serious, atheling is correct when he says,
We must maintain a presence in Iraq. How else can we "contain" the violence? Keeping pressure there occupies the enemy from placing their entire focus on our homeland. We also need a foothold in order to meet the impending war with Iran.
IMHO the only strategy can be containment, it just depends on how much containment we are prepared to tolerate.
Posted by: km at September 26, 2006 4:29 AM
"To be serious, atheling is correct when he says"
Ahem, it's "she"... hehehe, and I'm not offended at all! ;)
Posted by: atheling at September 26, 2006 4:15 PM
Sorry Atheling, I am glad you are not offended.
Posted by: km at September 26, 2006 5:18 PM
km,
No apology needed! How are you to know my sex?
Posted by: atheling at September 26, 2006 6:02 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)