| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. troops complied with orders from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Tuesday to abandon checkpoints around Baghdad, including ones in and around the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City….U.S. officials said they did not receive advance warning of the order to remove the barriers by 5 p.m. local time Tuesday. Military spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, said officers were meeting to "formulate a response to address the prime minister's concerns." -- from this article
This countermands the American directive and the cordon which was intended to help American soldiers find the Iraqi-born translator who may have been kidnapped.
Again and again Maliki has shown an indifference to American desires. He was preparing some months ago to offer amnesty to those “insurgents” who had killed "only" American soldiers, until an outcry in this country forced the Bush Administration to tell him he couldn’t do it. He expects the Americans to fight and die for his regime, a regime like the previous one prepared to soak the Americans for all they are worth, all the billions they can provide. And how many former high Iraqi officials siphoned off how many billions, paid for by American taxpayers?
Most of those taxpayers will never know the high life now to be enjoyed, for the rest of their lives, by those “Iraqi” patriots who made out like gangbusters on American aid and are now living it up outside Iraq or in Europe, possibly attending the same defiles on the Avenue Montaigne as Suha Arafat.
Maliki is not, and cannot be, a “friend of America.” He is willing to endure the American presence only so long as it strengthens him and weakens the Sunni insurgents. And the Sunnis, in turn, or those not in the immediate “insurgency,” may now want the Americans to stay for the same reasons -- in order to protect them from the full force of the Shi’a. That’s it. The Administration refuses to understand this and keeps making policy based on hope, and on all the Unrepresentative Men that were in exile: Chalabi, Allawi, Makiya, and the tiny group of semi-decent mid-level former Iraqi officers who have unduly impressed American officers, and thus lead them to all kinds of rosy misconceptions and hopes, but are in fact the rare exceptions, not the rule. Or the Americans have tried with this or that group of soldiers or policemen to do the impossible in Iraq, which is to make them drop their sectarian and ethnic and even tribal allegiances. Simply cannot be done.
Why is this hard to understand? What is so complicated about it?
Why is Maliki, why are any Iraqis, allowed to interfere with American military decisions undertaken to protect or recover its soldiers? Why, for that matter, did Bush ever say that "we will leave" when "the Iraqis" tell us "they are ready to have us leave"? When, in the history of the American government, did a President say that "we will leave when the locals are good and ready to have us leave"? An incredible attitude, a complete abdication of responsibility.
And if it not the "Iraqis" then it is "the generals" who will tell me about what tactics to employ. But what if it is not the "tactics" that concern the generals, but the strategy? What if "the generals" wish to tell Bush the one thing he will not let them tell him -- that he has the wrong policy in Iraq, that we should be exploiting these ethnic and sectarian tensions, not trying to end them? Of course they won't tell him this. They haven't been permitted to think for themselves in this area, haven't allowed themselves to learn about Islam and to realize that the "war on terror" is a dangerous misnomer, or to think about the other instruments of war -- propaganda, counter-Da'wa, stopping the demographic conquest of the countries of the Western alliance, of NATO.
No, this one cannot expect of them. But one can expect more pointed, unanswerable, deadly criticism of the way in which Bush has palmed off responsibilities on both the Iraqis (will we still wait until the "Iraqi" government "tells us we can leave"?) and, in a different way, on the American generals. Those generals, not as outspoken or brave or perhaps quite as aware of the menacing islamization in Europe as the British army chief, General Dannatt, have not been asked by Bush for their opinions on strategy, but only on tactics. They must remain silent about that. So his assurances to us that he is willing to be flexible, to change according to what his generals tell him, is a hollow assurance, for those generals are not asked, and are apparently not permitted to give (and seem disinclined to be independent enough to violate that prohibition, to question the entire strategy) their opinions on whether what he thinks can and should be done in Iraq, from the viewpoint of American (and larger Infidel) interests, makes sense. He permits only discussion of tactics on how his ill-defined "victory" is supposed to be attained: that "victory" we hear so much about, that damned "victory" in the "war on terror."
His stated aim is not to weaken or divide or demoralize the Camp of Islam. Not at all. His stated aim is to strengthen Iraq, keep it cobbled together, and he intends to do so by further squandering the lives of American soldiers and hundreds of billions more in American taxpayers' money. What would $500 billion do had it been applied on energy projects to reduce Arab and Muslim oil revenues? The current American policy is not to exploit, but to prevent, the natural fissures, sectarian and ethnic, that are so obviously presented in Iraq. Instead, there is the lemming-like repetitiion of phrases that then become deeply-held beliefs, such as the belief that "instability" in the Muslim lands is always and everywhere a bad thing -- which is what the Saudis and other Sunnis are now telling, not whispering, to all those who will listen to them (and there are still so many) in official Washington.
The current policy is an obstacle to the necessary effort of educating the public, and focusing on checking all the other instruments of Jihad (the money weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest), especially in the most important theatre, not the Middle East but rather the unsettled and imperilled nations of Western Europe. Bush insists Americans must remain in Iraq to "defeat the terrorists" and "bring freedom." And stay there they will, because of the obstinacy of those who lack sufficient knowledge, intelligence, and imagination, to begin to conduct a policy less wasteful and more effective than that we endure at present. They must stick with what they started, or so they think, lest they be perceived as having delivered "a victory to the terrorists." And so the President and his loyalists and his claque all insist on the same unchanging aims, no matter how ludicrous and self-defeating and wasteful and impossible of achievement those stated aims really are.
A nightmare.
Posted by Hugh at November 1, 2006 9:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
1)The US needs to pull out. Enough is enough with this insanity.
2)Partition Iraq. The Sunni, Shiites and Kurds get their own countries free of their enemies. The nation building will then truly be theirs. If they fight amongst themselves afterward (most likely) then let them wipe each other out. It will prove once and for all how worthless the Koran really is if these co-cultists kill each other even after getting what they most desire-a national homeland for each group. Why should the Americans be sitting ducks in a civil war as they are now?
3)If other countries in the region (like Saudi Arabia) fear partition then let them provide for their own defense. Why should the West provide mercenaries for these rich playboy princes? They already have armies and sophisticated equipment-let them use them.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 1, 2006 9:36 AM
Let's just get the hell out of there. It's their country and their future. And I don't buy this talk about 'havens for terrorists'. 9/11 could have been planned anywhere (as long as they can get idiots to give flight lessons with no takeoff or landing). The real problem is Iran. Not sure what to do, but certainly no more nation-building experiments, which require spreading troops thin everywhere in a hostile environment. Specific attacks on specific targets would allow the troops to remain concentrated and safer. That is how Bush I dealt with the first Gulf War.
Posted by: Benjamin at November 1, 2006 9:43 AM
The Iraqis have enjoyed the opportunity to raise their purple fingers in democratic elections.
It's time for a referendum to decide if the coalitions efforts are completed. If the populace votes to have the coalition leave because we have done all we can, then we declare victory and leave.
If the Iraqis vote to have the 'occupation' continue, then Bush has received his mandate validating his stance to stay until the job is finished (whatever that means).
Maliki has made his choice clear enough. Let's hear it from the Iraqis.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 1, 2006 9:43 AM
If we just fight to win and not worry about the media we can end this in short order.
When we rolled over Europe and the Pacific in WWII completley destroying Germany adn Japan, we won and put two strong democratic countries in place. Since then, we have had the "U"seless "N"ations telling us how to fight and we haven't won a decisive victory since (except Granada where we just kicked ass).
Just roll over Baghdad, Fallujah Etc, Tehran, Qom, Damascus, andything that ends in 'stan Etc. and put together a free democracies with whatever survives.
Or bring our troops home and let them kill each other and then roll over the place.
And outlaw Islam in any form. Freedom of religion is one thing, death cults are completly different.
at November 1, 2006 9:49 AM
Is it too late to get William Gawthrop on the ballot?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 1, 2006 9:51 AM
Mullah Dubya the dhimwit, aka Georgie Boy, is a nightmare. He was a nightmare in 2000 and a nightmare in 2004. The man can't speak. The man can't think.
I watched in horror as Americans chose an imbecile and thug to represent them. Watched in horror every time President Alfred E. Neuman ("what me worry?") opened his mouth.
Mullah Dubya has done more to tarnish the image of USA than any other president in history. A nightmare truly.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2006 10:06 AM
My tax money at work... :(
Posted by: squire at November 1, 2006 10:34 AM
Ynkedoodl2 wrote: "...has done more to tarnish the image of USA..."
The incessant worry about the "image of the USA" abroad is a root cause of all the diplomatic and military insanity we are seeing. It is a box outside of which we are not permitted to think.
And if image has to be so important, I personally would prefer to see more Lone Ranger and less Lord Jim, more Teddy Roosevelt and less Jimmy Carter.
at November 1, 2006 10:39 AM
What more do you expect from Bush. He is and always has been a 'New World Order' stooge.
Bush should have won the war when he won it...
Posted by: duh_swami at November 1, 2006 10:40 AM
There are other tests. The biggest Test will be Iran. If, feeling inhibited or tied down by Iraq (and fearful of retaliation by Iranian agents or sympathizers on American soldiers in Iraq) the American government fails to deal with Iran. then the Iraq policy will prove to have been a complete, rather than merely a partial, fiasco.
Posted by: Hugh at November 1, 2006 10:51 AM
If anyone is interested in what moderate, middle of the road Americans are thinking, I received this today from my brother in law who I describe as a kindly, somewhat naive, doesn’t yet completely understand the menace, American. I’m working on him. Occasionally when we converse I mention something and he looks at me like, you cannot be serious, but in time, as he thinks about it he starts to agree.
“WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT
OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning. Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there. The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.
Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those
Nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved
during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic?
Call France! In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China. I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis. I have instructed! The Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York. A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil. Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now. We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. They care. It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin." Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic. God bless America! Thank you and good night. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier. (Please forward this to at least ten friends and see what happens! Let's get this to every USA computer!)”
at November 1, 2006 11:19 AM
Hugh, you're right. Time to invade Iran is now while we have the bases and Iraq is still not ready to attack us in the back when we invade Iran.
The position and timing have come together. Our army is in the perfect spot and Iraq is becoming more hostile.
See Daniel Pipes
"Decision Time on Iran" I posted two comments below his in more detail on why now is the time.
Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation phase are 70 per month, see table.
at November 1, 2006 11:20 AM
Yes America HAS to withdraw and concentrate on fortifying its own security. As the following facts emerging point to the fiendish plotting of the jihadists:
"... Iraq's Shia and Sunni clerics recently met in Mecca and signed a covenant to end sectarian strife....is momentous. Formally organised by the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the meeting is an important step in uniting the faithful......
The covenant follows King Abdullah's disapproval of Iraq's growing sectarian violence, and belies Western hopes that Saudi fears of increased Iranian influence over Baghdad's new Shia elite would accentuate Shia-Sunni rifts in other Muslim countries as well. Far from fearing the assertive Shia elites of Tehran and Baghdad, Riyadh has dexterously recruited them as partners in Islam's last battle...."
Be they sunni/shia/ahmedia or of any hue,they have no qualms about uniting to slay us, the infidels.I hope America wakes up sooner to this truth. Unlike India which not only refuses to wake up but also masochistically relishes getting bloodied nursing some chimerical dream that ahimsa gets awarded:(
at November 1, 2006 11:32 AM
Maliki may want to order us out of Iraq before we can use our bases there to invade Iran. Maliki may realize that if we invade Iran, Maliki is gone, by democratic means or otherwise.
Maliki's decision on the check points is a play to anti-Americanism. Maliki realizes he needs to solidify himself as the anti-American and order us out of Iraq before we can use our bases to invade Iran at much lower cost to us, and still keep Iraq on a road to democracy, without Maliki.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at November 1, 2006 11:46 AM
@stendec
"The incessant worry about the "image of the USA" abroad is a root cause of all the diplomatic and military insanity we are seeing."
I'm not worried about it. Didn't worry about it. Nevertheless, USA has lost the moral high ground and the image people have of the US is based on the moron we've elected to govern us.
Does it matter? No.
But can you blame the Europeans for their contemptous attitude of us?
Personally, I can't. But then personally, I can't stand Mullah Dubya.
When he was elected people said: "Okay, he's an idiot, but he'll surround himself with competent people. Plus he's pro-gun and anti-abortion. Hip Hip Hooray!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2006 11:56 AM
Ynkedoodl2,
Are you part of the latest al-kaida propaganda drive? This is Jihad Watch not Bush Watch. Yeah we should have voted for Mr. Thetroopsarestupidandlazy right? And him with lower grades than the Pres.
at November 1, 2006 12:11 PM
tgusa-
That's a damn fine speech. Too bad there isn't a single politician out there with the guts to give it.
As for the Islamaniacs terrorizing China-I'd love to see that. The PLA won't worry one bit about collateral damage or the outcry it would cause.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 1, 2006 12:13 PM
Kerry was talking about bush,not the troops.
Posted by: Patriot8 at November 1, 2006 12:25 PM
Empirically speaking, whatever be the factors inhibiting George Bush, at least under his leadership some jihadists HAVE been eliminated.
Can we point out anyone among the wimps around the contemporary world who would have done it? (excluding Israel of course)
I, being an Indian cannot but cite the case of India, who in Swami Vivekananda's words, saw slaughter of the worst kind wrought by islam. Do its rulers care? Do they have the gumption to even express the Hindus' rage leave alone act?
George Bush deserves praise for taking a stand and conveying that terrorism will not be tolerated and following it up with some action too. Far superior to cowardly but eloquently pontificating nations around.
Posted by: Crows&Cows at November 1, 2006 12:30 PM
Ynkedoodl2: "...can you blame the Europeans for their contemptous attitude of us?"
Yes.
Bush is not the great orator or strategist. But compared to any current western European leader, Bush is a Churchill. As for the "moral high ground," the venal, pusillanimous, and cynical European politicians demonstrate daily that they do not even know what morality is.
If this were Middle Earth, the Europeans would be cheering for the the Orcs.
at November 1, 2006 12:46 PM
Iraqis divided over U.S. checkpoints order
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR153887.htm
Posted by: Mackie at November 1, 2006 12:48 PM
Maliki and Musharef should be shot.
We are now a country of a bunch of crying p*ussies, including many on this site. Don't pull out of Iraq.... Demolish it, and many of its people. Build landing fields and fotifications for our next mission Iran. It's the sissies like Kerry over here turning our population into fairies. Where's the good old fashion American Balls?
Posted by: Gotham at November 1, 2006 1:00 PM
@stendec
Personally, I wish Dubya were more a slimy and manipulative European-style bastard ala Chirac (or Schroeder) and less an ingenuous, clueless, bargain-hunting, superficial and boastful American rube.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2006 1:13 PM
Yep, there's nothing like that slimy and manipulatve European-style moral high ground.
at November 1, 2006 1:37 PM
Manipulative.
Posted by: Stendec at November 1, 2006 1:38 PM
@stendec
Let other nations criticize the US for being isolationist and selfish. Nothing immoral about it.
Let our President really put the nation's interests above his own. Manipulate all he wants.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2006 1:51 PM
Patriot8
If Kerry was talking about Bush, then what I heard him say about 5 times must have been completely taken out of context.
I guess Don Imus,MCain, Harold Ford Jr.Jon Tester, Ben Cardin, Bruce Braley,Tim Walz,Bob Casey, and several democratic candidates that have asked him not to appear on their behalf must have misunderstood Kerry as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMRecdL_No
A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared text had called for him to say:
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Do you see a joke here? I sure don't! Or are you just being facetious.
Posted by: Mackie at November 1, 2006 2:06 PM
It's a good joke because it resonates with truth!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2006 2:13 PM
Posted by: Patriot8
Kerry was talking about bush, not the troops.
I seem to remember when Kerry came back from Viet Nam - the troops were glad to see him go. He directed his hatred at the troops stating they were committing all manner of war crimes while the troops were still over there going through hell. Sure, he took a swipe at Bush in an indirect manner. He did it then - he’s doing now. In his attempt at an apology he says - "Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how," Kerry said. "I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and his broken policy.” There - he said it all.
at November 1, 2006 2:18 PM
The Pres. needs to tell Congress pay up or pull out. If a majority of us want to fight in Iraq until we can get them to stand up, fine, but no more fighting with one hand tied around the balls. Apply force. I will say beforehand I don’t think they will ever stand up, have the South Koreans ever stood up? I am sick of our troops running around the world with a Kleenex wiping the noses of these ingrate countries. Do you know what they call an Infidel in jihaziland? A target, that’s what. We need to prepare for the larger battle that is coming. It is coming, and p*ussies are dead men walking.
Ynkedoodl2,
Wrong again, # of Troops with a least H/S Diploma around 95%, Civilian 74%, lucky for the Civilians that they include former military in those stats or this percentage would be in the toilet. They don’t take lazy, stupid volunteers, they discriminate.
at November 1, 2006 2:26 PM
Bush had a good talk on the radio today, laying out a thirty-year threat. But he miss-states two things (for whatever reason):
1. That the good-intentioned US effort is capable of changing Iraqi society. It just isn’t going to happen. He speaks of the dreams of twelve million voters. The votes did not represent ‘dreams’ (in disclosure, I fell for it too when it was on TV), the votes represent a power struggle between the Shia and Sunni, and the voters were directed to vote by their religious leaders. This will not change in our lifetimes.
2. That when things go to hell, that the mullahs will hold the West hostage with oil. The arrogance that prevents Muslims from being good at Slow Jihad will prevent them from efficiently organizing a boycott in wartime. Oil will spike, but then prices will likely fall. OPEC will split. Warring factions will need money more than the West needs cheap oil, and good old-fashioned market economics will prevail.
There are two theoretical ways out of this mess. Bush is pushing the one that would benefit all of humanity, for probably the right moral reasons. But its not going to work, and even if it did, a success would not be in the long-term interests of the American people.
Bush’s worry of militants taking over the Middle East and establishing an all-powerful Caliphate can be prevented by keeping Western forces in hardened bunkers in Kurdistan and rural Afganistan. It will be like the war on drugs, you can’t win it, but you can prevent the opposition from organizing.
The tricky part will be to contain the violence to the Middle East. Remote, forward-based forces will help in this respect as well.
at November 1, 2006 2:43 PM
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
Do you see a joke here? I sure don't! Or are you just being facetious.
sounds like he was saying bush is an idiot.I dont like kerry any more than bush.So i dont really care,was just saying he wasnt talkin about the bush,maybe he was,i dunno.But sounds like he was talkin about bush.
at November 1, 2006 2:51 PM
was just saying he wasnt talkin about the bush(meant the troops)
Posted by: Patriot8 at November 1, 2006 2:52 PM
@tgusa
Kerry wasn't talking about the troops. He meant Bush. He meant to say the following:
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
This is the same thing Hugh Fitzgerald might have said. And I agree!!!!
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 1, 2006 2:59 PM
Duh, sure he did. And I’m homer simpson.
Someone should tell the troops that he was misunderstaken.
http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/carry-large.jpg
at November 1, 2006 3:10 PM
Apologies,
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/01/lazy-and-uneducated-photo-of-the-day/
at November 1, 2006 3:23 PM
lol,thats a funny pik.Good to see them in good spirits
Posted by: Patriot8 at November 1, 2006 3:25 PM
"This is the same thing Hugh Fitzgerald might have said."
Yes, except that Hugh has a thought out plan. All the empty-headed Kerry has is snotty, juvenile name-calling.
To compare Hugh to Kerry is an insult to Hugh.
Posted by: Stendec at November 1, 2006 3:44 PM
The key to pulling out is to do it in a way that makes it clear we did not lose. That is why you split the country up. Pull out of the Sunni and Shia sections and then make a deal with the Kurds to use air bases to continue to attack our enemies in Iran and Syria and attack enemies in the old Iraq. The reasons you make a deal with the Kurds are....
(1) Although the Kurds are muslims their hatred for Arabs and Persians is greater to their hatred to non-muslims. We won't be friends or allies but a need for us to help one another will exist. We will help establish a greater Kurdistan out of the old Iraq and perhaps part of Iran and they will give use of bases to take out people we would like to kill in the future.
(2) By using the Kurds (them using us also) the argument that the jihadies beat the Americans will be void becuase we will still really be in Northern Iraq now called Kurdistan.
(3)Also a strong Kurdistan will freak the hell out of Iran and the Arabs to the south. The way to defeat the muslims to to divide and conquer and thus you should play up the ethinic hatreds to your advantage. The Kurds have lots of scores to settle. It will take years to get all the revenge out of their system. Lets use this to or advantage. Islam is strong but lets start using our brains and find the weak spots. Islam always goes after the minorities in the west and tries to "convert" or Dhimmi them so we should try the same with the Kurds. Their faith has been shaken by their hatreds (some very understandable at that). They are a weak link in the chain called Islam.
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at November 1, 2006 3:59 PM
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."
The joke is if you don't study hard in school and read about military history you too will end up like Bush. The trouble is and the really funny part about the joke is who said it.....John Kerry. I could respond to Kerry by saying....
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up losing the presidential election to a fool like Bush. Just ask Senator Kerry."
at November 1, 2006 4:12 PM
"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up losing the presidential election to a fool like Bush. Just ask Senator Kerry.
Now,THATS funny!!!
to bad its true.We had dumb and dumber to choose from in '04.
Posted by: Patriot8 at November 1, 2006 4:27 PM
@greatcometof1577
The problem with allying with the Kurds and leaving the rest of Iraq is that there would be no way of supplying our bases in Kurdistan without crossing hostile territory.
I would suggest that we leave Iraq by way of Syria and annex northern Syria, including the port of Lattakia, to Kurdistan. It doesn't have to be official (the independence of Kurdistan doesn't have to be official either). And Syria's Kurds are concentrated in the north of the country anyway. That would give us a way to supply the Kurds and our bases in their country without going through Turkey, Syria, or (what's left of) Iraq.
Posted by: tvdog at November 1, 2006 5:01 PM
l would say, let the iraqis kill each other, protect the oil fields, and siphon off the oil to pay what the US has already spent on iraq.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 1, 2006 5:02 PM
Don’t think all this was not planned to have an effect the outcome of our elections. They have to make America appear weak to get the republicans out. You will see both sides Sunni and Shia play this game, nothing in their press will show anything good. Yes, there are a few items worth mentioning, rebuilt infrastructure, marriages, school openings, and entire sections of Iraq where life has moved forward. I still have contacts in the box and they have a different outlook than our press. I will not get into what I think as it is irreverent to my point. The American and foreign press is attempting to influence our elections, do a search of international press and compare it back to one month ago. My advice vote for the candidate never the party.
Posted by: Ronin at November 1, 2006 5:21 PM
tvdog; concentrating and shielding our ground forces has no impact on airspace control. We controlled Iraqi airspace before the war with carriers and land based aircraft from elsewhere. Resupply of the base from the air would be for maintenance only (not like the months of shipping it took to get the stuff there in the first place). Very doable.
Posted by: limes at November 1, 2006 5:47 PM
@tvdog
"The problem with allying with the Kurds and leaving the rest of Iraq is that there would be no way of supplying our bases in Kurdistan without crossing hostile territory."
I would agree in terms of ground shipments but we can still supply by the air as stated by limes (see above). Of course you are right about Syrian areas. This could be all resolved by the expansion of the greater kurdistan into Iranian and Syrian areas.
The one problem with the plan however is Turkey. I would however cross the bridge once I get to it. Both Kurds and Turks seem to like cash and can be paid off for the right price. I prefer to waste cash on muslims if they are killing Arab and Persian muslims. Remember our true goal (unstated of course) is divide and conquer. Just like the cold war when we turned the Yugoslavians against the Russians. We helped cement the distrust between China and Russia. They were all bloody communist but there is no world wide revolution if they are all at each other throats.
All this of course does not happen inside a box. We should be arming the SLA or SSLA (Sudanese Liberation army)and Ethiopians to wage war againist the northern Sudanese and Jihadis in North East Africa. We should arm the Christian Nigerians to wage war against muslims there. We should arm every dissadent group in Iran we can find even if they are objectionable to us. It will keep the Iranians busy. Heck we should even arm the shias in Arabia just to make even more mischief. We should arm the Serbians etc in Europe. In fact we should give cash to groups in Europe who would be for the removal of muslims etc. None of this of course would be official but if muslims want to use underground groups to attack us I think it is only fair to do the same. Our troops should only be used in Afganistan and Western Pakistan to root out Osama and his group. We should launch a full scale invasion of destruction in western Pakistan and destroy every village, house, chicken coop we should come across. Total Sherman to sea kind of stuff and "submit or die". If Pakistan and its army attempts to stop us we will eliminate their nukes and encourage India to remove the Kashmir problem. Let the UN scream. What are they going to do? Iran does what they want...so should we. Try and stop us.
Thats war folks.....both direct and indirect.
Liddell Hart would be proud for there is a solution to every problem.
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at November 1, 2006 6:39 PM
Our brave men and women are dying over there and Kerry thinks they are stupid and like most Democrates; hate our country!!
Posted by: guide inside at November 1, 2006 6:45 PM
@ZenaWarriorPrincess
"l would say, let the iraqis kill each other, protect the oil fields, and siphon off the oil to pay what the US has already spent on iraq."
That off course would be Plan B. Just take their oil...hehe. Once again the UN would scream but what are they going to do about it.
Sometimes the leader of civilization just has to do what is in the best interest of civilization. Oil in the hands of US is better then oil in the hands of 9th century barbarians.
at November 1, 2006 6:58 PM
Sometimes the leader of civilization just has to do what is in the best interest of civilization. Oil in the hands of US is better then oil in the hands of 9th century barbarians.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at November 1, 2006 06:58 PM
Excellent point. Who found that oil and developed those oil fields in the first place? Certainly not the barbarians, who would probably be eating one another right now for lack of money to import food.
at November 1, 2006 9:41 PM
It is becoming increasingly clear that we need to completely cut off shipments of oil from the mideast.
Heck I'll pay $5.00 a gallon for gas if it will get these yahoo's off of our backs and into the desert where they belong!!!
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at November 1, 2006 11:34 PM
Islam has declared war on civilization, and so far has not paid any significant price for that.
On behalf of civilization, we should seize the Iraqi oil fields, sell the oil, and apply all subsequent revenues to a new Defense from Islamic Imperialism Fund. This fund would, among other things, pay for the following:
1. All past, current, and future Coalition military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hot spots.
2. The cost of all extra defensive security arrangements forced on the West by the Islamic terror threat, including increased airport security, increased port security, and creation of special anti-terror security agencies such as the Dept. of Homeland Security.
3. Reparations, lifetime medical care, and financial aid for families of soldiers killed or wounded while fighting Islamic fanatics.
4. Similar reparations to civilians killed or injured in terror attacks, as in 9/11 and 7/7.
5. Military aid to countries, like Thailand and the Philippines, and yes, Israel, facing Islamic attack.
6. A world-wide 24/7 counter-dawa campaign using all types of media.
7. Security walls across appropriate borders, including the U.S. borders, with surveillance and patrolling hardware and equipment and staff.
8. An international strike force with "license to kill" any imam or ayatollah who issues a death fatwa on any citizen of any free country.
9. Research and development costs for new sensors to locate jiahdist tunnels and caves, and new bunker buster weapons to "dig them out."
And so on ,,,,,
If, after paying for all that, there is anything left over, we might offer some funds to the Iraqis, but only if they start "making nice" to each other.
The general idea is to make the Muslims pay for their aggression. If they want their oil, all they have to do is stop making war on the rest of humanity.
Posted by: Stendec at November 2, 2006 12:02 AM
Somebody said that all might is based in the military, and its hard to imagine relations getting any worse. Iran’s most productive oil regions are located near Iraq’s wells, and we should probably be making plans for those as well. There will come a day when we will be strong enough to name our enemy.
And then we'll be able to charge 'user fees'.
Posted by: limes at November 2, 2006 12:15 AM
Here are your rules for posting comments:
"Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted."
This site just deleted my long post. It is to the point, but one you don't want to hear. Its words are carefully selected to cause you the same feelings of insult and pain that your commentaries' words that defame our leadership and show a lack of empathy for combat veterans who deal with death every day do to me and other people who have fought for this country and its citizens' rights to speak openly and freely.
Your sensorship of my comments regarding your commentary and article as basically cowardice and lacking in character is no more offensive than your references to President or Mr. Bush as a "stooge" or jerk or whatever happens to fit your anger. I am the author of Etiotropic Trauma Management, a series that has treated trauma victims including combat veterans, and managed perpetrators, including providing interventions on cults for over 30 years. In this comment I attacked your opinions and other highly disrespectfully stated and OFFENSIVE views of current policy with the same kind of denigrating word selections as you use. I know for a fact that your views go to the heart of undermining a fighting soldier's willingness to place his life on the line constantly. I know for a fact that your opinions cause excruciating heartache to those following our nation's orders of them to fight and die. For them, it is akin to having schizophrenic parents. Your words, hidden behind your own versions of PC and rationalizations, remove the great meaning they assign to their combatant associates' deaths, and to the possibility of their own. I've written more scholarly work than everyone here but Mr. Spencer. I find these comments and Mr. Fitzegerald's to be psuedoacademic, insulting at the max, and vitupertive in their intended state. The words I choose are intended to shock you sissies into direct confrontation with the same processes and words that were used by our anti war citizenry to win the Vietnamese war for our enemies. You are doing the same thing here. And I'm confronting it. Apparently you can handle it when you are dishing out insults and defamation to our combatant leadership, but when someone uses freedom of speech to do the same to you, it is too offensive or someother word often used by Muslims and the liberal left to shut down debate. My words are strong and my comments were exactly what this country needs to hear, especially as a counter to your foolish expressions, hidden by hilarious attempts at academic argumentation. Mr. Fitzegerald, whose work I greatly admire regarding Islamic scholarship, is speaking without merit on the subject of keeping western forces in the center and flanking positions of the mid east. Worse, his use of "nightmare" is intended to induce hysteria for those familiar with the "Vietnam nightmare" syndome. I'm 100% disabled combat Marine and an anti guerrilla warfare fighter and instructor for the 5th Marine Division activated for Iwo Jima and Vietnam. I know more about the circumstances surrounding guerrilla warfare and the way perpetrators use it to control the decision making processes of democratic nations than this editing staff, or Mr. Fitgerald and Mr. Spencer and all commentary authors here will no combined in the rest of their life times. For the sake of the same issues that you cry and whine about when the "mainstream media" rejects your opinions because they are perceived as Islamophobic, I demand the same space and rights no matter your insensibilities, for example, as Muslims' feelings are hurt if you tell the truth about Muhammad's sexual intercourse with a nine year old. My offense is just your fear of being told how insideously offensive is your stupidity.
Sincerely, Jesse Collins.
Author of the Etiotropic Trauma Management Series found at http://etiotropic.com.
Posted by: Jesse Collins at November 2, 2006 12:22 AM
Jesse; I wrote this in response to your deleted comment:
If you think that there is any national interest in putting our people between two warring religious groups as peacekeepers, to the tune of $2 Billion and twenty five good men per week, you are wrong. Our government is not strong enough to accurately name the enemy. In practice, our nation’s sacrifices are serving him tonight, not us.
You argue that if we disengage in Iraq, we’ll be fighting in our streets. I counter with the fact that a certain percentage of the 140 new Muslim arrivals that moved to the US today (10%?; 50%?), and will arrive again tomorrow, and the day after, do not share the same American dream that we do. And the sooner we can get things out in the open and drop this PC nonsense, the sooner effective steps can be taken to address the real threats to the West. There will be fighting in the streets before this is over, just ask the dozen or so French policemen that were assaulted today, will be assaulted tomorrow, and the day after.
The correct strategy is to maintain the forces in theater in a sustainable and affordable manner, so that when the ‘fighting in the streets’ enlightens the electorate, the options you favor are still available. And if you don’t have a gun in your house, I’d recommend a trip to Wal Mart.
Thank you for your service, mine cannot match Iwo Jima or the front line guys in Vietnam. But I have had the opportunity to look down the barrel of a Muslim gun. It is not fair for the guys on the ‘pointy end’ tonight to be fighting a PC war.
With respect;
at November 2, 2006 12:44 AM
Dear, and respectfully to: Mr. or Ms. Limes, or to whom the name refers,
Thank you warmly for your words of kindness given to me personally, and for responding with forthwith opinion regarding comments about Iraqm which were regrettably deleted from this site.
I want you to know that there are very few Americans since WWII that I admire as much as I do those of you have served our country in the mideast wars, with great emphasis on this current series of battles in Iraq and Afganistan, and of course all other waring and highly dangerous areas. I salute you and the men and women with whom you privided us with the security for our lives. I deeply appreciate sir, or madam, your caring for this country as manifested through your service.
I only wish that my views and direct and intended focus on those who scorn with underlying and often even outwardly expressed vituperation our leadership, which is responsible to our combatants for their very existence, could be expressed along with the thorough intellectual arguments posted on this site that posit that the current wars should be fought another way. My commentsry to which you responded was eventually deleted so that all to whom I addressed it could not answer me as did you.
Here is why I think posting my arguments, regardless of the screener's oposition to them or the manner of their expressions was and is necessary. When men and women spend their day walking on the remains of hour old battlefields, smelling burned carcases and removing and lining up their dead cohorts' bodies or their remains for transport, and then stacking corpses of the enemy so that they can be claimed, identified or bulldozed, and providing security for families wailing with the carnage of what used to be their children now held in their arms, those combatants' hearing that this soul affecting work is a waste of our resources or are in other ways meaningless, for example, it may be pricey, or past the ability of a poor civilian a half a world away to cope with the hardship of having to just hear about such things, then those combatants' wills to even exist become shredded soup as dinenfranchised synapses in the brain. At those times, those hurt people of ours don't have a brain as we here in safety know it. At those moments of the worst of the trauma they rotely follow preimplanted by training directions. That will must come from somewhere else, usually from unit discipline and esprit de corps, new trauma mitigation combat management systems (see Guerrilla Warfare's Pathogeneis and Cure, one of my {Jesse Collins} 30 titles pertaining to management of trauma affected individuals and systems) and a fused interdependence with their associates who fight along side of them daily. But other than that, the great resevoir of will needed for these people must come from the nation of individuals, starting with the chain of command and its leadership, that sent them into this fight for their, and as they are told, our lives. That concept seems to be reasonable to them in this case, given the facts of the deaths of our neighbors, more in 25 minutes than our entire army sustained in 3 years, and 10 times the economic loss initiated by 19 enemy combatants in that 25 minutes, than has cost us to wage our meager response applied to their heartland within this war. Even 5 more years of war expense will not surpass the trillions befalling western civilization starting within seconds of the final building's hitting the ground on that day in September, 2001. For those who chant "I have freedom of speech" no matter its consequences to the central power formation, that is individual and system will, of our capacities to wage war, to respond to constantly followed through threats of murder and slaughter, and their occurences,I say to those chanter: speak and write your heart away, but we will countervail your damages with our same kinds of attacks upon you and your motivations and judgments. When a man or woman is blown through the air by enemy ordance, and then after picking themselves up with blood covering their face, neck and chest, and an ear is gone, or there temporarily is no sound or vision, and then as they recover on site they ask the chaplain "what's this all about, pastor?" which is what all traumatized people ask if they can talk, they should not have to be doubly assaulted from the back by the chanters and people who call them mongers and terrorists of the worse kind, or by those intellectuals and experts who differ with the leadership's policy saying their combat efforts are a waste because they don't comply with some new abstract that's starting to float around the Internet or talk shows. We learned from the Vietnam war that those of us supporting the combatants' mission and objectives must out ridicule the ridiculers formerly getting a free pass with little criticism to undercut their own strategies. Subsequently, I have attempted to apply that learning through my initial, former and now deleted comments to those of you in this blog who voice your objections to policy and make without consequence hysterical claims of a "Nightmare" because we lost a near record 100 combatants in this month. You must know that I view those wordings as "hysterical" because previous attempts to stop or slowdown (contain) world domination activities, like Vietnam, Korea, and WWII, saw us routinely lose more that many heros like these men and women before the sun rose. But no matter, you critics about leadership stupidity, that is, referring to the President and commander of our combatants as a "stooge," and his questionable veracity will turn our bravest and most self sacrificing frontline and midline management service men and women ontologies into meaningless nothings, having fought for nothing, having undergone carnage for nothing, and being with their associates when they have died, according to your opinions, for nothing. My deleted comments on this site were intended to and did hopefully cast shame upon your intellectual efforts. My comments were initiated because they are moral and literary countervailants to your site's expressions of meaninglessness of our courageous loved ones' selfless sacrifices for both your rights to disrespect our plans and the people we've hired to implement them, and our same rights to show disrespect of what we believe is your catastrophic analysis and judgments which I most assuredly believe will hasten our demise. In that regard, I demand equal time with which to assault everything you bring to bear against the wills of much braver and more intelligent people than you. I'm speaking to the site management of this blog who made the decision to cut my post, not to the very fair comments of my kind critic Mr. or Ms. Limes, or to whomever that name represents.
By the way (Limes), regarding your advise to purchase weaponry as a defense against non moderate Islam from Wallmart, I do own a Model 94 Winchester chambered to express 44 magnum remington fire with a 4 power scope, giving acurate fire at 150 meters, and a M14a1M25 7.62 mm snipers rifle with a 10x lens, which shoots accurately at 503 meters with only open sights. I have training in these and other armaments. Thank you, though, for your advice to buy a weapon for defense from Walmart. I do believe that we will need these armaments and many others within the year inside the heartland of the U.S. As I'm sure that you know, Al Queada claims now, through the fellow who engineered 9/11, a lock on complete demolition capacity of 7 of our largest cities. My research shows that when including Hezbollah and Hamas, that the mass killing Muslim network has the abilities now to blow all 104 practically full storage bins attending all nuclear powered electricity generating facilities in this country. I believe we'll be involved in this near action within the year, no matter what occurs in Iraq.
Ha. I'm now 61, and I thought until recently that my anti guerrilla war fighting days were long gone 40 years ago. I so hope that I was right, and that my current concerns of war in this land are functions of misreading the literature.
I submit this response your writings with admiration and respect for your service to this country and your well spoken opinions, no matter our differences.
Semper Fi, Jesse Collins
My 30 years of work in the fields of psychological trauma treatment, and management of systems traumatized and controlled by sociopathic syled perpetrators is found at http://etiotropic.com
at November 2, 2006 7:16 AM
Jesse Collins,
I am interested in what your post said. Is there any way you could try to repost it?
at November 2, 2006 9:16 AM
The post by "Jesse Collins" was not quite as coherent and inoffensive, either in its contents or in its expression, as the outraged poster seems to think. He further seems to think that military service endows one with the right to speak on certain matters, and lack of military service does not, and he further makes all kinds of assumptions about such military service. But it is perfectly clear that a great many officers an and men who are veterans (such as John Murtha, whatever one thinks of him) would like an immediate withdrawal, perfectly clear that there are many generals who think the war in Iraq (whatever the varied views of those generals, from the appeasement-minded William Odom to the perfectly acceptable group of generals who recently served and who think the war a mistake).
And anyone who has had occasion to interview officers and men who have returned from Iraq, who have been there on two or more deployments and so had enough experience to get beyond the urrah-excitement of the first deployment, have come to realize that the "good Iraqis" hardly exist, that the very notion of the "Iraqis" as "our friends" is nonsense, that the entire country consists largely of Muslims who will take whatever they can from us in the way of aid and new schools and hospitals and all the other stuff we have piled on or tried to (risking the lives of soldiers to do what the Iraqis themselves will not do), and who are not always quite clear about how incoherent and stupid is the policy they are being asked to carry out, but the more questioning, and less blindly obedient they are, the more they will realize a few home truths
To wit:
Islam is not a "religion" in the sense in which naive Westerners, respectful of the word, take it to be. It is a complete belief-system, comprising the political and the relgiious, and there is no area of life which Islam does not presume to regulate.
Islam is based on a deep and central division: that between Believer and Infidel. This is not tangential, but central to the belief-system. is a real menace. The world is divided between Believer and Infidel. Muslims must owe their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, never to Infdiels. They may feign, temporarily, some kind of friendship in order to further the cause of Islam (and no doubt some who least devout, least the Believer who believes, will be able to offer something like friendship -- even if that "friendship" or gratitude is always in danger of disappearing as one feels one's "Islam-ness" more strongly) but the American government, and the soldiers asked to carry out its policy based on ignorance of Islam, appears not to realize this.
Since the Administration has been unable, out of incomprehension or fear or misplaced calculation, to identify the threat to this country not as the Jihad but as "terror," and has further decided to frame everything as a fight against a "war on terror" and not a "war on the Jihad" this has had disastrous consequences. War-fighting in the traditional sense has become the focus, and in Iraq (as in Afhganistan) it is assumed that there is a discrete populationof "terrorists" whose numbers can be reduced by kiling them. But this is false; there is no discrete group, but a constantly replenished and replenishable group, from more than a billion Muslims worldwide, and it is the Camp of Islam itself that must be weakened. Some say that the bringing of "democracy" -- interpreted in the most primitive fashion as mere vote-counting, without any of the guarantees of minority rights, or any of the spirit of compromise, or any of the individual rights, such as those of free speech and freedom of conscience, that are part of the advanced Western democracies -- will help to weaken Islam. But how? Has "democracy" weakened Islam in the election sin Eghypt? No, the Muslim Brotherhood made out like gangbusters. Did "democracy" in Lebanon work, or will it in the future, to limit the power of Islam, or will it bring Hezbollah almost certainly far greater political power than it now has? What did the exercise of "democracy" do in the "Palestinian"--held territories -- did Islam emerge weakened, or did the Islam-based Hamas emerge more powerful, so powerful that it is now controls the government, and only economic sanctions may force a temporary modulating of its position, just enough to pretend to satisfy the Western donors so eager to renew the Jizyah of their foreign aid to those same "Palestinians"?
The focus on Iraq has turned attention away from the need to diminish the "money weapon." Now that oil prices are going down, it is criminal of the Adminstration not to announce new taxes on gasoline, and to set forth in lucid fashion the need to diminish the revenues that fund Jihad. But there is silence about this. There is silence about campaigns of Da'wa. There is silence about the demographic conquest of Western Europe, of what has already happened to weaken the resolve and pro-American foreign policy of those countries, and that can only get worse unless there are changes both in immigration policy (a complete halt to Muslim immigrants) and to domestic policy (ending the payment of large benefits to Muslim families, making the conduct of a "Muslim" life more difficult by refusing to modify in the slightest, or otherwise accoommodate, Muslim demands or supposed needs).
Finally, you know nothing of my own background and your assumptions are assumptions. I will say only this. There is a Medal of Honor winner in my family. There is a very close relative who served in Anbar Province. Let's just leave it at that. That does not entitle me to have an audience, any more than you deserve to have an audience because you have been invovled in treating people for combat injuries for several decades.
The only thing that entitles anyone to an audience on this matter is the marshalling of evidence based on knowledge both of Islam -- its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics -- and of Iraq, especially of the ethnic and sectarian divisions within it, that can reverberate without. That's it.
Military service does not, by itself, mean that one has become well-versed in these matters, nor that one is necessarily capable of thinking things through logically.
There are, after all, a goodly number of officers and men who have served in Iraq (even who are serving right now) in agreement with my position as to the squandering of resources there, and I need no lectures from you as to what the "military" thinks.
Posted by: Hugh at November 2, 2006 10:07 AM
Jesse Collins,
I never saw your original posting, so I don't know what was said there.
I agree with you that the criticism of our national leadership here is often laced with unnecessary and unhelpful remarks about a person's intelligence, his unknowable internal thought processess, or unknowable personal motives. I suppose that some posters really mean it, and that others are merely frustrated by the situation, as revealed in the daily sayings and doings of those public officials.
To be sure, persons of all stripes post here: leftists, rightists, and everything in between, plus Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and persons every other religious persuasion. We have Americans, Brits, Indians, Australians, Filipinos, Norwegians, and contributors from many other countries. We even have the occasional jihadist make an appearance.
Generally, I think it is best to let everyone have their say. These are merely off the cuff commentary and reportage (for the most part)--not formal academic treatises. I have no clue as to why your post might have been deleted.
I don't know how long you have been reading JW/DW. I believe, having visited the site daily for the last eighteen months or so, that generally these are folks are not "anti-war" at all. They are interested in winning, since Iraq (and all the other Islamic conflicts across the globe) is more than just a conflict between nations--it is a global ideological one that threatens the very survival of civilization.
Instead, the arguments here generally are about the BEST strategy for winning, with the least cost in men and materiel. I think it is fair to say that no one (excepting the jihadists) wishes to cause anguish to any serving or retired soldier. But such soldiers are not well served and honored if the larger ideological war--the war of words and ideas--is not also won (witness, the tragic Vietnam denouement). In fact, we owe it to our soldiers to make that ideological fight loudly and vigorously.
The frustration that is often vented here arises from concerns that the national leadership seems at times not sufficiently aware of the ideology that motivates the enemy. Whether that is completely true or not, I believe there is strong evidence that this is so in many cases. I therefore believe that Islamic ideology, as affects policy, is something that needs to be discussed openly. We all need--and our leaders need--to thoroughly understand the Islamic/Mohammedan ideology in order to prevail in the long run.
Aside from being bombed on a few times in Vietnam, my time in the service was fairly tame. Luckily, I never had to witness first-hand the combat carnage, or had to sort through piles of corpses searching for friends, or had to stare down the barrel of a firing gun (aside: my Vietnamese wife endured all of those experiences). I wish only that we will win this war (and the larger global one), on all fronts, as quickly and efficiently as possible. I hope only that our leaders will not back off at all, but steadfastly and vigorously confront the Islamic ideology and utterly defeat it. Therefore, I try every day, in my own small ways, to get that message out.
My personal thanks goes to you and to every soldier, sailor, marine, or airman, now or in the past, in whatever capacity, who has ever served our nation and fought for our freedom.
Posted by: Stendec at November 2, 2006 11:13 AM
So he thinks we are all stupid morons who never served, never read a book, are ignorant of history and should shut up because, because why? Because he is more experienced in guerrilla war fighting? The first American guerrilla fighters were seen in the Revolution. There were also many Americans on the other side, they were called loyalists. We all know who won out. Look, if he wants to complain about what is posted that’s fine with me, but calling us all dumb headed ignoramuses because he doesn’t like what is written is not the best way to go about it. Many, many here at J/W are former Military/Combat Vets are these people stupid too? There are many in America that want us to lose, they are not the majority. Get used to those hurling insults and anti American rhetoric, but don’t make them out to be a bigger group than they are. This is not Vietnam, the Vietnamese did not hold to an ideology that demanded they kill everybody that will not submit. The NVA or VC were not trying to fly Aircraft loaded with women and children going on holiday into tall buildings. Southesat Asia was not the location of vast oil deposits. The Vietnamese have not to my knowledge threatened to Nuke our cities or fly the Vietnamese flag over the White House. Disagree? Fine, show us all how brilliant you are by posting a non offensive, coherent reply that points out why we are wrong not what is wrong with us. BTW in Vietnam the enemy was crawling around in caves and tunnels right underneath our noses, popping up, attacking, then retreating back underground. Our leaders however never seemed to grasp this concept.
Posted by: tgusa at November 2, 2006 11:15 AM
Semper Fi Jesse.
at November 2, 2006 12:52 PM
Dear Respondents and especially Mr. or Dr. Fitzgerald,
I regret that I'm leaving for town for 2 days. I'll be back on Saturday at which time I will write to those of you who read and responded to my two demands to post my orginal comments to this site. None of you can know my full view because you cowardly prevented that persective from being shown. It critized, not necessarily your ideas themselves about the futility or missmanagement of this war in Iraq, but mostly to the ad homenum attacks made upon this President. My complaint is that it is ok for you to dish out critism of others'intellect or selection of management modality, but when someone uses the same freedom of speech to address you on the same obtuse level, and necessarily in order to countervail the damage that you do to the fundamental will of the fighting man, you can't take it. Like the anti war citizens in the streets, when pointing out the damage they do to morale, they hide behind freedom of speech as if they have no responsibility for any horrific consequences attending their position. Freedom of speech is not the issue. It is the damage caused by their constant criticisms that impair the majorities' ability to wage the war it voted on, and in fact even support the enemies' positions vis a vis their desire for our withdrawal, and regardless of your denial that you are providing great and comfort to that group of, in this cult managed psychopathic killers. That opinion, which Mr. Fitzgerald you have removed rather than face openly in debate attacks you for your lack of intelligence and pertinent experience, just as you attack the general views I hold as I expressed in majority vote for the current combatant leadership. There is considerably much more that I will write on this specific issue when I return.
Mr. Fitzegerald and you silly writers of how you would do it if president, your knowledge of Islam or the middle east state governments' posititions are not the primary experiences or or attendant skills required to address the looming battle, as you have opined while singling out those who have a right to an audience on this issue. Rather the issue is a psychological trauma and perpetator management one. That is, cults apply special management models relying up the dynamics of trauma to manage their membership and advance upon their advasaries. For example, cults, and in this case Islam, use double entendre to conflict their enemies' decision making processes. Double entendre's use in the cult management model sells peace, euphoria, the honor of all men within the membership, and everlasting serene life, offset by opposites at the other end of d e's continuum by presenting horror, and constant threat of maiming, carnage, the requirement to commit violence or even kill other human beings. That duality splits the minds of cult members making them incapable of reason. They can only abide by cult directives. In another example, cults, again in this instance Islam, cause traumatic events, the more heinous the better, to discombobulate advasary decision making processes at every systemic juncture, to include otherwise supposed to be objective research academians like yourself, to function analytically unclearly with a result being the aid and abetment of the perpetrator's goals. Laymen call this phenomenon the Stockholm syndrome. Actually both cult modality examples referenced here are indefensible by you because you know nothing about the subject matter, being a historian rather than an intevenor on perpetrator management application processes. In that regard, I consider you albeit historically knowledgable, to be undefended from our antagonists techniques, thus manipulated by them, making you inevitably incompetent to address these matters. A specific example of that incompetence is your site's continued professional recommendations to solve the problem of global conquering by Islam by importuning or trying to persuade cult members, in this instance so called Islamic moderates, to reform the Islam charter themselves. If you had studied cult / perpetrator management, and the strategic application of post traumatic events, their professional address, and consequential symptoms to and from both offensive and defensive systems, then you and your following would know that leaving the responsibility for Islamic documentation change to people affected by the split mind perpetrator controlled cult management mechanism. There is a solution to the cult controls and advesary manipulations. But your ideas are not it.
Regarding your continued attacks on me personally, that is, where you speak to my less than coherent writings, They have been addressed to you as the site editor who removed my first treatment of these subjects. With your having constrained this level of intellect with what is tanamount to Islam's use of the sword to silence reformers, or "free thinkers" as Mr. Bin laden says, referring to how you capriciously or surreptiously cut away my remarks, which were strategically and necessarily intended to offend you, again just as you have damaged the will of those combatants following the majority's directions via your attacks upon our leadership, and regardless of whether you couch them in academically camoflaged hysteria, have conveniently supported you to hobble my direct focus upon the cult induced psychopathology that guides your decision making processes.
My expertise in combat trauma and its effects on individual and systemic will results from 30 years direct treatment and management of substantial numbers, hundreds, of combat veterans, and virtually every other kind of trauma event affecting thousands of victims and hundreds of systems. I have been a consultant to the military component that addresses the effects of traumatic events occurring on the battlefield. I've written 30 titles and include articles too many to count, but available on my site to read in a 50 MB tutorial and professional training school, accepting only graduate level psychotherapists and crisis managers as attendants such as first responders and mid, executive, and care giving levels of managers of combat operations. I glean my expertise from that hands-on experience, practical application and academic work noted on my site, which presents my work: that is, I developed the clinical model of Trauma Resolution Therapy and its management application component Etiotropic Trauma Management which between their online distance learning professional trainings, combined with academic schools / courses presented at major universities like the University of Texas complete system of teaching units, has trained over 3000 referenced professionals, over a period longer than most of you probably are old. And that adhomenon is appropriate considering your denigration of my personal experiences with combat trauma, which have motivated and complimented my academic and teaching activities. I mean that this group of commenters are Y and I, young and inexperienced.
Your alegations that my complaints where credited upon primarily upon a belief that lack of military experience, and particularly combat experience involving learning first hand the effects of combat trauma on individual and systemic decision making, precludes effective intellectual management contributions are embarrassingly for you, without merit. I will explain this is true and why consequently you are inept in your analysis of this war we are battling in my next response when I return.
By the way, if you want academic and thoroughly researched arguments for support of the administration's policies and intent to fight from Iraq and other locations, please read Frontpage magazine's Jamie Glasov's interview of Mr. Mir and their subsequent debate on Iraq, provided in the Islamic nuclear capacity in this country article: Symposium.
By the way. I thought that internet comments discourse was supposed to use the lame email writing model, which often abbreviated and full of misspellings, as spell checkers are not available to correct typos and errors in grammar attending efforts to squeeze thought in to this small comments box.
I look forward to addressing morons when I return.
Again. Semper Fi to those heros like Mr. Limes, who understand the phrase's meaning to our band of brothers.
Yours very truly,
Jesse Collins
Posted by: Jesse Collins at November 2, 2006 4:03 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)