| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Perhaps I was too kind and too hopeful about Rumsfeld. I have read his recently published memo. It does not offer an inkling of understanding the real thing. Yet for some reason I keep thinking Rumsfeld, alone among those lumped together as supporters of the war, and certainly made into a bogey-man for reasons I cannot fathom (surely the main problem is Bush himself; he's the Captain Queeg on this listing ship, while Rumsfeld was only first or at times second or even, when Rice came along, third mate), really knows what is going on.
Kindness, sweetness, hopefulness -- these are my problems. I possess far too much of them for my own good. Clearly. I'll try not to in the future.
Those who were raised in the Cold War -- those who were handed, that is, the pieties and certainties of that war and did not have to learn or think for themselves overmuch -- have demonstrated their limits in the present conflict. However well-spoken they may be (and Rumsfeld is well-spoken and far more intelligent than Bush, Rice, or most of the others), they have been raised in an environment where completely independent thought simply is hard to find.
And they are busy, busy, busy. Those reports. Those endless meetings. Those more reports. Those bullet points. What in god's name did Rumsfeld, the smartest of the lot, understand about Islam and about the idiocy of the phrase "war on terror"? What did Rumsfeld, the smartest of the lot, understand about how the Muslim Arabs (the Kurds are a special case, because they were grateful for past protection, and eager for future support protection that can only come from the United States) were inevitably going to treat their "liberators" after a short while? What did he know about the Sunnis and the Shi'a, and how everything that has happened has happened inevitably and was perfectly predictable (and was, at this website, predicted and predicted and predicted)? What does Rumsfeld know about the notion of Jihad, and of the instruments of Jihad?
Perhaps now that he is out of office or soon will be, Rumsfeld will start to learn. Without having to get up at 4 a.m. to be driven into the Pentagon to work all day without ever taking the time that he long ago should have taken, and so should they all, perhaps he will begin to study quietly, to read quietly, about Islam -- starting let's say with Bat Ye'or's The Dhimmi and Islam and Dhimmitude. He can read them, he's the smartest of the lot. He might try also the books intended for a mass audience by Robert Spencer, including Onward Muslim Soldiers, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, and his The Truth About Muhammad. Then he could turn to Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim, and after that to the anthology The Legacy of Jihad. He should keep going, not stopping until finally the scales fall from his eyes, and he sees that the goal should never have been Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, but rather a single and unswerving goal by the Americans and its remaining allies and others that might be allies yet again: to defend ourselves by weakening the Camp of Islam and Jihad, and to do that by dividing and demoralizing that camp, playing upon the pre-existing divisions, the three main ones being sectarian (Sunni and Shi'a), ethnic (Arab and non-Arab) and economic (the Muslims with vast unmerited wealth, and the Muslims who have no oil or gas deposits). Two of these divisions present themselves in Iraq today. The Administration -- whose smartest member was Rumsfeld, remember -- instead keeps taking as its goal and declaring as its definition of "victory" exactly the wrong thing.
Rumsfeld now has time to learn all that, and to start with a little mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, about this, and then to go around and explain, in the corridors of power, just how wrong he -- and all the others -- were. He owes the country, after his participation in this Big (and nearly universal, because the assumptions about the nature and severity of the threat were, and remain, also completely misunderstood by the opposition to Bush) Mistake, a Big Correction.
Not merely a "Course Correction." Something much bigger.
Posted by Hugh at December 4, 2006 9:40 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Too late now for him to do all that reading. I certainly hope the next groups of bigshots coming into power in the future will read all those books and more, because they all need to be well versed in Islamania. No more playing kissy face with that crowd because of sheer ignorance. The post 9/11 generations had better be boning up on the Koran right now-otherwise they will be minus a head when a green flag flies over the White House.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 4, 2006 9:52 AM
Hugh, you've defined an obvious reason for the lack of leadership in this conflict: the political and media elite have no time for reflection. Their worldviews are built from executive briefs supplied by their handlers, and with legions of security providers ensuring their personal safety, they don't feel sufficiently threatened to assess the jihadist threat realistically.
Posted by: Clive at December 4, 2006 9:54 AM
What in god's name did Rumsfeld, the smartest of the lot, understand about Islam and about the idiocy of the phrase "war on terror"?
What does Rumsfeld know about the notion of Jihad, and of the instruments of Jihad?
Rumsfeld is a globalist. What he cares about is not the instruments of Jihad, but the instruments of international commerce.
He does not need to know about islam other than to learn how it will help him land a contract.
Rumsfeld's notion of "war on terror" means anyone getting in the way of commerce, liquidity, and profits.
To people like Rumsfeld and even those who will replace him -- war is police action and limited engagements.
If you destroy an enemy, he can not buy from you.
Those is how we are going to lose the so-called war.
Posted by: witness at December 4, 2006 10:28 AM
My prediction is that Rummy will shortly see that Islam is the real problem.
Funny how these guys can see the light only after they are out of office.
at December 4, 2006 10:31 AM
You forgot to mention something that struck me deeply when I saw it on TV some time ago: Rumsfeld dumbfounded that the 'insurgents' would fight from mosques. I remember him getting rather emotional about it, which he doesn't often do. He really did not understand Islam.
I agree that pro-war commentators like Andrew Sullivan are being unfair and a bit cowardly in blaming Rumsfeld for it all. It was Mission Impossible, due to the social circumstances in Iraq (Islam being the primary factor).
But there's a quandary here. How do you seem strong on fighting terrorists while staying out of useless wars? The Democrats mostly voted for the Iraq war so as not to seem 'weak'. It was primarily conservative, Republican rhetoric that put them in that position. Are you aware of how an anti-war 'conservative' is treading on thin ice with respect to the (not very intelligent) public debate? You must be. Yet it is true that some wars are futile, and this can be known from the beginning, if one bothers to study the social conditions in the country we are blundering into.
I am not sure that our public debate can be smart enough to figure out how to fight terrorists intelligently. We still cannot protect our borders, which seems like the first line of defense to me. And we cannot take on the entire Muslim world, at least not without being far more vicious. Did it not take the Dresden firebombing and Hiroshima to defeat the axis?
Posted by: Benjamin at December 4, 2006 10:38 AM
I admired Rumsfeld -- but he had a rough ride (especially with the media and his political enemies.) But now he is being replaced. It is time to look at these replacements (and shudder in disbelief), and consider what this so-called "new direction" entails.
From what I see, it entails a pacifist "dialogue" and a new found "understanding" of Islam. Bush is bending over backwards to out-do the Democrats. He's kissing up to Shiite leaders in Iraq (one of whom just happens to be quite friendly with Iran); he's letting reports by Baker and company encourage "dialogue" with rogue terror sponsoring states (that's Syria and Iran); he's not saying much about the weakening of the UN's resolve to sanction Iran's development of nukes; and now he's accepted the resignation of Bolton. It goes on and on. (I could add the domestic situation in the U.S. doesn't look good either -- weakening of security meaasures; ever increasing numbers of so-called students from Arab countries flocking to the U.S.; the lack of border security; etc, etc).
Meanwhile, in the Middle East virtually everything that could operate against the U.S. (and for the terrorists) is occurring. All allies of the U.S. are in states of chaos; while supporters of the terrorists flourish.
And I don't see how the situation is going to improve -- certainly not in the "new found direction" aimed at appeasement.
Posted by: J.S. at December 4, 2006 10:38 AM
Can the Islamic desire for modern democracy overpower the Islamic instinct for savage terrorism? The Iraq result says no. Bernard Lewis is a believer in the Muslim potential for democracy as it exists in his favorite Muslim nation, Turkey. BL has lots of communication with Dick Cheney and other admin figures. Perhaps BL is greatly responsible for our plan to invade, to liberate Iraq from Saddam's thugocray. Then move smoothly to to a democratic Iraq. We sure tried! And I'm not necessarily slamming us for trying and fighting the good fight.
Kurd seem to be doing well and with a rough democracy. It's the savage Sunnis who are the mass murderers. The Shiites absorb most of these massacres but Iran and their Al Sadr stooges are just as evil. The Sunni Shiite warfare overshadows whatever good we do.
Posted by: dennisw at December 4, 2006 10:46 AM
Good intentions aren't enough but I still like and honor Don Rumsfeld. He's a great American who tried to pull off a great liberation of the Iraqi people and BY EXAMPLE of other Muslim nations
Posted by: dennisw at December 4, 2006 10:48 AM
Mr. Rumsfeld is gone but now we have Baker! What would we do without all these lawyers selling us out? That’s right, Gulf War 1 Baker. Bush 1 lost the Presidency in 92, Why? Because he failed the get saddam and it split the party. Yes I know the argument regarding his removal and the Iranian threat. However we ended up with Clinton for eight years and then 9-11. How would the world look today if we had gone all the way to Baghdad back then? But here we go round the mulberry bush once again. Check with me in ten years and see how it all works out. After all, what does Baker care about Americans, he’s an old man who got rich off of the country as with so many others involved with the guvment over the last half a decade. I am sick of the conservative candidate offerings, remember B1 was elected in 88 largely because we thought he was a Jr. Reagan. Wow, what a mistake that was. Now we have the son following in dad’s footsteps. I want a decent choice next time! I’m starting to give a hard look at Newt, but I need more info. Yes I also like Congressman Tom, how bout the two of them?
Posted by: tgusa at December 4, 2006 11:33 AM
Hugh,
I read your post yesterday and today regarding Rumsfeld and do not think you have erred or being too kind. Rumsfeld is a very smart man, but I believe he was buffaloed by the Administration into doing what it wants, namely Cheney and Bush. The grave errors were in essence committed by Wolfowitz in trusting Chalabi and his gross miscalculation and after planning. I happen to like Rumsfeld alot, but think it was time for him to go. The letter he wrote several days before resigning was probably to cover his butt. There have been colossal mistakes made in this war, because they did not fight to win, now we will depart with our tail between our legs and status deflated. However, before they leave, Sadr should be eliminated, and I have been told by Special Forces that would be easy to achieve.
I thought your post yesterday was outstanding!
Cordially,
Bonnie
at December 4, 2006 11:34 AM
"the last half a decade"
that should read... the last half a Century.
at December 4, 2006 11:36 AM
Witness sez:Rumsfeld is a globalist. What he cares about is not the instruments of Jihad, but the instruments of international commerce.
And so it goes with the most rest of the hierarchy of the US gov. How many gov officials are members of The Council on Foreign Relations? (A known and powerful globalist group). I saw the 1994 membership list (very hard to come by), and there were plenty of US officials, elected and appointed who are members of this organisation. Including Bill Clinton and nearly all his appointee's, at the time. I dont things have changed much...only the cast of characters is somewhat different. The CFR is blatant in its support of a one world gov, whose headquarters wont be in the US, but in Genoeva Switzerland...and Witness is right, it is all about power and money...
Posted by: duh_swami at December 4, 2006 11:38 AM
dennisw said
...the Islamic desire for modern democracy...
?????
There is that assumption again, that all people in the world share our values: freedom, peace, tolerance.
The Iraqis never had any desire for modern democracy. It is not part of their history, not part of their culture, and most importantly, not compatible with their religion.
Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2006 11:49 AM
"Kindness, sweetness, hopefulness -- these are my problems. I possess far too much of them for my own good. Clearly. I'll try not to in the future".-Hugh
I can just see Barry Fitzgerald slyly saying that with a smile to the the perp-murderer in one of the movies where he plays a New York City Police Detective on the trail of the perp-murderer and closing in on the perp-murderer.
Posted by: Frank at December 4, 2006 11:53 AM
Not long ago, Rumsfeld looked Charlie Rose square in the face and said, "The vast majority of Muslims are moderates!"
The fact that someone as no-nonsensically conservative as Rumsfeld can say this shows just how deep the PC MC virus has infiltrated in the body public.
Posted by: remote_control at December 4, 2006 11:57 AM
"because they did not fight to win, now we will depart with our tail between our legs and status deflated"
-- from a posting above
The problem is not that "they did not fight to win" but that the goal that they wished to attain was exactly the wrong goal, and still is. They won when they deposed the Sunni despotism, for that set in motion what was inevitable: the transfer of power to the Shi'a from the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, and then the refusal of the Sunnis to acquiesce in such a transferral, the refusal of the Shi'a to give in or to do anything other than pretend -- in order to keep the Americans training and supplying and fighting for them, the Shi'a who control the Iraqi government, a while longer -- that they would be willing to "share" political power and therefore oil wealth.
As for departing with tails between legs -- not at all. Depart, and let the shrill cries of victory and showing up America ring from every Muslim rafter, then give it a month. Give it two. And watch inside and outside Iraq things happen which will soon show who gains from the American withdrawal (the Americans do, and so do all those in the Camp of Infidels) and who loses (the Shi'a and the Sunni Arabs in Iraq do, and so do all those in the Camp of Islam).
Be patient. A month or two after withdrawal is not much time to wait to see the inevitable, much-to-be-desired results. And things will keep getting better, and better, and better. From our point of view. Not theirs. Watch.
Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2006 12:43 PM
How many gov officials are members of The Council on Foreign Relations?
Honestly?
Anyone who is anyone; I was also a member of the CFR at one point, and listened with disbelief about their matter-of-fact, done-deal attitude about world government.
What was laughable to me is when someone would tell me that the CFR did NOT exist! That I was a conspiracy nutcase.
I assure you, they DO exist and their recruitment is by invitation only.
BTW -- I am no longer a member!
Posted by: witness at December 4, 2006 12:46 PM
The Council on Foreign Relations is supported -- so many things are -- by businessmen too busy to find things out for themselves, but who fancy themselves terribly interested in world affairs, and if the "right people" are all together in some group, people with the right credentials and outward aspect, then supposedly one is in good hands. I remember recommending J. B. Kelly to the member of a celebrated Boston family. He couldn't find Kelly's name either in the roster of the Council of Foreign Relations, or in the Harvard Alumni Directory, so he asked suspiciously, "Say, who this is Kelly? No one seems to have heard of him." No one but Sheikh Zayed, and Sultan Qaboos, and the Al-Saud, and Bernard Lewis, and P. J. Vatikiotis, and Donald Watt, and Kenneth Minogue, and Elie Kedourie and Sylvia Haim. Nobody.
I heard a pipsqueak voice on the radio the other day spouting the usual nonsense about the "peace process" between Israel and the "Palestinians" (or was it the proleptically- reified "Palestine"? I can't remember). In his innocence, and in the pitch of his voice, he appeared to be about sixteen years old. It turned out to be Richard Haas, former State Department "peace process" flunkey, and now the head -- the head -- of the Council of Foreign Relations.
No further questions, your honor.
Posted by: Hugh at December 4, 2006 12:52 PM
Also, I should tell you that the CFR has its main headquarters in NYC.
There membership includes many of the elite religious organizations; media and broadcasting tycoons; heads of most international companies.
You can also get their publication Foriegn Affairs that have articles from various public officials that will spell out for you exactly what the US government will be doing.
It is not always correct in its predictions, but it is insightful to get see the thought process of your elected officials as well as elite among the military brass!
The reading is dull for most readers, so the publication does not get too much attention. You can find a copy of the publication in any public library.
Posted by: witness at December 4, 2006 12:56 PM
It turned out to be Richard Haas, former State Department "peace process" flunkey, and now the head -- the head -- of the Council of Foreign Relations.
I'm so glad not to be wasting time with this organization -- what really did it for me was listening to Albright in her hey-day during a speech at the Chicago branch. It was all about the Kosovo war, and her.
And yes, in addition to the several members of the government who are in this organization -- indeed a lot of business types who want to "be seen."
You might do better "business-wise," at the local masonic lodge! LOL!
at December 4, 2006 1:02 PM
Be patient. A month or two after withdrawal is not much time to wait to see the inevitable, much-to-be-desired results. And things will keep getting better, and better, and better. From our point of view. Not theirs. Watch.
Posted by: Hugh
I do hope you are right Hugh......yes, I'm sure you are.
Posted by: Bonniea at December 4, 2006 1:28 PM
The same embarrassingly naïve strategy Bush employs in Iraq is evident in Afghanistan. Low numbers of troops, political amateur night, propaganda blowback. If we had focussed on the real enemy--the Taliban--and devoted enough resources to defeating them (you know, hiring strategists at the Pentagon who had read a book on guerilla warfare), we might not find ourselves in this no-win situation.
We have been lead by the dumbest of dumb and the most arrogant of arrogant.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at December 4, 2006 1:40 PM
Rummy is great, and was great from the beginning and is so now.
His absence will be sorely missed.
And now John Bolton, the best man at the UN for the West in twenty years, has resigned.
Whatever else Bush is, he is courageous, single minded (though wrong on immigration and in his closeness to, and thus being influenced by, the Saudi bastards).
May the Lord have mercy on America.
Hey Ibrahim, you skank, you're getting a few victories.
And now the Chamberain Manifesto from the has been Commission.
Posted by: dgene at December 4, 2006 1:52 PM
Hugh said
Kindness, sweetness, hopefulness -- these are my problems.
No, those are not problems, they are desirable attributes. We should fight to hang on to our kindness, sweetness, hopefulness, because the world is working hard to wrench them from us each and every day. With the election of each dhimmi leader, and the inevitable betrayal, the fight goes on.
Those "problems", hopefulness and the rest, are only problems when, ala-Karen Armstrong, they cause one to create an artificial view of the world, just the way one would like it, with no connection to reality. "Their own private Islam", as you put it. Those "problems" only become a problem when one starts believing those hopes are actually true, and starts acting as if they were true. One should be kind, but not build on the assumption that all others wish as much kindness towards us. I believe it was Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify."
We should all hope (I do) that the "vast majority of moderate Muslims" will soon confront and defeat the "few extremist Muslims", and the whole Islamic jihad of the past 1,350 years will disappear. Hope for that, but prepare for the more likely case that the "vast majority of Muslims" are the extremists, and only a large violent confrontation will stop them. Act as if our situation is precarious, as if the millions of Muslims already living among us may pose a threat. Act as if they believe that religiously-sanctioned violence is justified, democracy is a corrupted government-of-imperfect-man that must be destroyed, and that non-Muslims are inherently inferior to Muslims.
It is no fault to hope that Rumsfeld will become a latter-day anti-jihad spokesperson. None at all. But, to be succinct, he is not.
Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2006 2:45 PM
Bonniea said
However, before they leave, Sadr should be eliminated, and I have been told by Special Forces that would be easy to achieve.
You have made my heart go all a-twitter. Easy to achieve. If only someone would give them that order.
Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2006 2:53 PM
Yes, I know special_guest. We can't figure out why they're keeping him around, unless they're afraid of a major Shiite uprising, however, how much worse could it possibly get over there? They should have eliminated him two years ago.
Posted by: Bonniea at December 4, 2006 4:13 PM
i know this is offtopic but read this its concerning the ex spy
LONDON – Reports that KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko converted to Islam before his mysterious poisoning with radioactive polonium 210 is raising suspicions that he may have been involved in a plot to smuggle the deadly substance to terrorist groups willing to pay millions even for a gram, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is reporting today.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53208
Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 4, 2006 5:48 PM
Greek Gurl,
Yeah, supposedly his father has said that, but I read in another article that this info came from one of Litvinenko's neighbors. So, I'm not sure if it's true or just hearsay. But, I'm sure we'll find out for sure when Litvinenko is buried...
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at December 4, 2006 6:11 PM
bonniea said
they're afraid of a major Shiite uprising
That's the point. They, not the Special Forces, but those much higher up, are afraid. They are afraid of stirring the pot. They are afraid that Shi'ites will kill Sunnis, and Sunnis will kill Shi'ites, and both will kill Kurds. They are afraid that Saudi Arabia will support the Sunnis, and Iran will support the Shi'a, and the conflict will spread from Iraq to the wider Middle East. They are afraid that anti-Arab sentiments will arise in non-Arab Muslim lands like Indonesia and Thailand, and the intra-Islam conflict will spread with Muslim fighting Muslim all across the globe. This is what they fear. They should be encouraging it, but they fear it. That's the point.
I wouldn't mind if Special Ops left a small team behind, waiting for a day or a month after the withdrawal of U.S. forces, to carry out the operation then. There is no hurry, as long as it is done. The more it is associated with fellow Iraqis, and the less with the U.S., the better.
Posted by: special_guest at December 4, 2006 7:04 PM
So after numerous 'errors and mistakes', Rummy will peacefully retire at tax-payer expense whose tax-dollars he (and ofcourse dubya) wasted without a blink. Where is the accountability?
Posted by: Alert at December 4, 2006 7:28 PM
It seems to me that we gave Iraqis the freedom to do what they want - which is kill each other. Why is anyone surprised?
I say, put a big wall around the entire lot of them; give them all a choice - the West (freedom, technology, progress), or Islam -- and let them all just kill each other and leave us alone.
Posted by: ReligionofPeas at December 4, 2006 11:11 PM
Wasted tax dollars??
Rumsfeld engineered a winning military campaign as ordered, with almost full Congressional support...Husseins' forces were quickly dispatched and the brutal dictatorship toppled.
No more mass graves.
No more Hussein torture/rape rooms.
No more WMD development/deployment.
Iraqi voting/Constitution developed.
Rumsfeld may or may not be aware of the underlying currents of Jihad around him, but this does not take away from his acomplishments on the battlefield.
He's probably glad to be done with it, considering conditions in Iraq today.
at December 5, 2006 2:45 AM
"Wasted tax dollars??
Rumsfeld engineered a winning military campaign as ordered, with almost full Congressional support...Husseins' forces were quickly dispatched and the brutal dictatorship toppled.
No more mass graves.
No more Hussein torture/rape rooms.
No more WMD development/deployment."
-- from a posting above
All of these things were achieved by the beginning of 2004. These goals, if they were the goals, have never been attacked in any postings by me here, so that if this reply is directed as a rebuttal to me, it is mis-addressed. The main thing is "No more WMD development/deployment" -- that should have remained the sole goal, but in the achieving of it the regime would have to be removed which would bring with it the other things ("no more mass graves"; "no more Hussein torture/rape rooms.")
The final thing listed by the poster is:
"Iraqi voting/Constitution developed."
That means nothing. The Shi'a turned out for the purple-thumbed exercise in January 2005 because they knew they would win, constituting as they do 60-65% of the population; the Sunnis hardly participated for the same reason; the Kurds participated in the national election but the same day held a referendum in the Kurdish regions only, in which 98% of those voting voted for Kurdish independence.
The "Constitution developed" -- so what? What does the Constitution constitute? A piece of paper, to be oberved or ignored by people for whom the rule of secular law hardly exists, and a document that, in any case, carefully maintains that no law shall be permitted that contradicts the Shari'a.
Everything of value you list was achieved between March 2003 and February 2004. That was when I said it was time to pull out from Iraq and have repeated this ever since. I see nothing in your posting that would cause me to change my mind. Rather, I see further confirmation.
at December 5, 2006 8:27 AM
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.)