Dear Mr. President; what are we going to do about the likes of the sheite cleric Motaq Al Sadr and his 60,000 strong Mahdi Insurgent Army who is getting its support from Iran? Are we going to continue to tip toe around this anti-coalition, anti-American leader or are we going to go in and neutralize his army? This is a war against terrorists who have no code of military ethics in any way and yet we are holding are troops to a form of ethics that puts their lives at risk every single day. We cannot fight this war with one arm tied behind our back. Either we go into remove and cut the enemy out or not. Drop the leaflets, demand every woman,man and child leave the area within 72 hours and establish safe Zones for them, then go in and weed out every nook and cranny in the area without hesitation.

Posted by: Mackie at January 11, 2007 9:55 AM

And then the Sunnis will acquiesce in the loss of power to what more and more of those Sunnis are willing to call "Rafidite dogs" and "Persians," and are aided by the howls and screams against those Shi'a all over the Sunni Muslim world -- not least in the influential press of Cairo, and the Arab-language press of London.

And the Shi'a will not object, apparently, to the sealing of borders with Iran's Shi'a, even as Sunni money -- through all kinds of financial finagling -- flows in, and of course the borders not only with Syria, but with Jordan and even with Saudi Arabia (the Shammar tribe flows over that border of Iraq and Syria) and Kuwait, would ahve to be sealed.

Last I looked, the American government was not capable of controlling or monitoring successfully a certain border much closer to home. But now we are told that the Americans will seal off the very long border between Iraq and Iran, with all kinds of the most difficult terrain -- here desert, there mountain -- and will somehow interdict as well the Syrian border.

And then what? Does the Administration think that it is conceivable that the Shi'a will ever turn on their own militia, other, that is, temporarily, and half-heartedly, only in order to keep the Americans pleased so that they remain to inflict one more year of damage on the Sunnis of Anbar Province and, so it is hoped, of Baghdad as well, and of course to "train" more of those "Iraqis" who consist largely of Shi'a who look covetously at all that fancy American miilitary equipment and are determined to lay their hands on as much of it -- or make the Americans leave as much of it behind ("we need it in order to fight the terrorists") as they can, and the Adminstration, with all of its bright trust in the Good People of Iraq, and its inability, its fear, of ever recognizing the menace and full malevolence of Islam, will no doubt play along, in order to help those "ordinary moms and dads all over the Middle East" whom Bush, and those who wish to share his hallucinatory view of things, tell us exist in such numbers, and all we need to do is put Iraq on the right path, and things will be well.

But for Muslims -- not for Chalabi, not for Allawi, not for Kanan Makiya, who represent the thinnest stratum, that of the secular, advanced, thoroughly westernized Iraqis in exile, but for the 95% or 98%% of Muslim Arabs in Iraq as elsewhere, the Right Path is quite other. It is the Right Path of jihad fi sabil allah -- struggle in the path of Allah. And we all know where that path, without undue meandering, leads.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2007 9:58 AM

What has been going on in Somailia as of late should have been going on in Iraq. If that was the case, we would be done by now.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 11, 2007 9:59 AM

It's pretty hopeless. I watched all the pundits, all the politicians give their comments after the speech. Not one of them has a clue about Islam. They STILL refuse to learn anything beyond the most superficial information from Muslim 'advisors' and their apologists about Islam and what Islam's goals are. Stupid is as stupid does. How can you expect to win when you can't even name the enemy? Isn't the first rule of war 'know your enemy?' Isnt' the second to divide and weaken him? Yet, here Bush is, fighting 'deviants who don't represent Islam' and spending hundreds of billions trying to keep our enemy together and strong. Go figure. I have measured the size of Bush's brain and it is remarkably the same size as Jimmy Carter's, a peanut.

Posted by: John Sobieski at January 11, 2007 10:08 AM

Bush wants more troops? I say get lost, or go and find them at the local university, if you can.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/January/10/local/stories/03local.htm
That’s right the military isn’t welcome at those hellholes of lower learning only ME hellholes qualify for that. It is coming, the day when these rats need the protection of the former and present military. But no help is going to arrive. As a matter of fact, mark my words, they will come a running and we will give them a grin and the finger. Mr Guvment man/ anti American citizens, I would not count on any future if you count on this type. You all have made your decision not to close our borders or acknowledge our true enemy. Eventually you will pay the butchers bill. The enemy is here in our laps and they want more patriotic Americans to stand for the rabble we have here? I think it is criminal. What would Jefferson do? Hang em high probably.

Posted by: tgusa at January 11, 2007 10:25 AM

Not a glimmer or a hint of recognition that the depth and duration of the Sunni-Shi'a split, which goes back to the first century of Islam, and the effects of which can be seen all over the Muslim world -- just look at Pakistan, whee Sipaha-e-Sahaba is a Sunni group devoted to attacks on Shi'a professionals and Shia' institutions, or at Saudi Arabia, where the Shi'a (almost all located in the Eastern Provicnce, Al-Hasa, and right where the oilfields are located) are treated with such contempt by the Wahhabis; or Bahrain, where Shi'a chafe under a Sunni ruler; or Lebanon, where for decades the Shi'a have been treated with contumely by the Sunni Arabs, and now reveal, in their belief that their time has come round at last, that they will give back as good as they got, and not only to the Christians and the Druse, but to the Sunnis as well; and then there is Afghanistan, where the Sunni Taliban was engaged in systematic mass-murder of the Shi'a Hazara.

Yet Bush thinks this can be overcome. After all, in 2002, when making plans for the invasion of Iraq, and in 2003, in carrying it out, he apparently never understood -- and no doubt hardly understands today -- the depth of the Sunni-Shi'a clash, and because he does not understand Islam, cannot possibly understand the failure or inability to compromisee with enemies, the aggressive worldview, in which Believers are always at war with Infidels, being so easily and naturally transferred to other enemies, and in the case of the Sunni those enemies are the Shi'a and in the case of the Shia' those enemies are the Sunnis, and on top of that, there is the ethnic divide, which Sunnis now -- inaccurately -- emphasize, by which the Shi'a of Iraq, many of whom may in fact now seek the support from, as they once sought exile in, the Islamic Republic of Iran, are described for Sunni audiences, and then taken to be, "Persians" which of course means "not-Arabs" and if "not-Arabs" then that means that they are inferior Muslims, and as Shi'a "Persians" close to those "Rafidite dogs" that al-Zarqawi ranted about.

Bush simply cannot think ahead. Whatever his sport may be, it is not chess. He doesn't think in those terms. He doesn't know how much one has to know, and how little one can just wing it. He didn't grow up with those nice books on chess for young boys, and he didn't discover, at the age of ten, that when Capablanca, in 1928, at Bad Kissingen, makes a certain move, it is exactly the right move, and his famous oponenent (Alekhine?) will as a result lose that game a few moves later. Chess is not Bush's game, but rather football -- or rather, watching football.

By now even Bush must realize that there is no possibility of making Iraq into a Light Unto the Muslim Nations. It is crazy to think that the very countries, Sunni Arab lands, most outraged at the diminished role of Sunnis in Iraq, and the gain in Shi'a power, would ever take Iraq as a "model" of anything (and this should have been clear four years ago -- it was to some).

And when he goes on again about "democracy" spreading around the Middle East, and mentions Lebanon, where a moment's thought would tell him that real "democracy," that is one-man-one-vote without any of those confessioinal power-sharing arrangments, according to the 1932 Census figures, by which the Christians still maintain themselves, would lead to a disaster for those Christians, and when he continues to mention the "Palestinian territories" as an example of wonderful "democracy" at work, he shows that he is one of those innocents who might be called "process-oriented" rather than "outcome-oriented," and who is therefore not someone intelligent enough to fight a war, a war that requires a knowledge and a cunning beyond anything he, or his loyalists, can conceivably understand.

And when he praises the participation of the "Iraqis" in "democracy" he still overlooks the main point: the Shi'a went out and voted, as a collective, for Shi'a parties, because they were told to by Al-Sistani and other figures (the leaders of SCIRI, the Da'wa party, even Moqtada al-Sadr), and the Sunni Arabs did not participate because they, unlike the Shi'a, are "against democracy" but becuase they knew that they could not come out ahead through a vote -- unlike the Shi'a -- because they constitute 19% of the population and ont 60-65%, as do the Shi'a Arabs. Bush can't see that.

Nor, at this point, can he conceivably allow himself to believe that the Sunni-Shi'a split cannot be overcome, precisely because of its duration and depth that go far beyond whatever Saddam Hussein did. Why not? Because if he were to do so, then the public would begin to ask: if the Sunni-Shi'a split was so profound, so that it cannot be healed by a jobs program or another 21,500 men "surging" in Baghdad, then why did you ever have the schemes and dreams that you did have for Iraq?

And Bush will have no answer. Nor will all those Bush loyalists.

And then others will begin to think the obvious: if the Sunnis and Shi'a are unable to compromise, and if they both dislike or hate their American saviors because those Americans are Infidels, and if furthermore both sides exhibit such such aggression, such violence (all those dozens of bodies, found in so many cases to have been fiendishly tortured, with drills as well as with those all-purpose knives), toward each other, and such obvious meretricisiousness and manipulation of the not-quite-endlessly naive and hopeful Americans (including those go-to-guys, those officers specially trained in "anti-insurgency techniques" who keep forgetting about the central role of Islam, and that there is no good and loyal side to protect and work beside, but merelly differing groups of hostile Muslim Arabs -- the Kurds, about whom much more could be said, are a different matter, and deserve support for geoolitical as well as, in some cases, sentimental reasons).

He has learned nothing. He even dares to suggest that if this effort does not work then "American troops" will have to stay longer.

No they won't. Because he will be out. He will have done great damage to an intelligent effort to divide and demoralzie the Camp of Islam, and to limit Muslim use of Da'wa and demographic conquest. He has already squandered enormous sums of money, war materiel, and lives that did not have to be lost, for the Americans could have left in early 2004, when the regime had been crushed, Saddam Hussein captured, his sons killed, and the inevitable -- which Bush seems incapable of recognizing and then putting to use, for the benefit of Americans and other Infidels -- began to happen, as the Sunnis, alarmed at their loss of power, and the Shi'a, bent on revenge and feeling their new power, began to go at it -- and will, even more, just as soon as the Americans leave. And the Americans should have left the day before yesterday.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2007 10:30 AM

Because we have deteriorated into making war by committee and public opinion the generals in Iraq were told to minimize the American military casualties or did so implicitly for the good of the army. Staying in those areas would have resulted in more casualties. Now, since the jihadis didn't just give up and go away Bush has backed himself in a corner. Until we get more ruthless than our enemy in prosecuting this war we are doomed to repeat all this over and over again. I learned my lesson as a young soldier in Viet Nam. As long as there is a Democratic party that can take control and cut as run there is no sense in wasting mine or any other's blood in any war. I fear the U.S. can no longer win any war as it stands now.

Posted by: Theseus at January 11, 2007 10:33 AM

Star Wars III may present an analogy. The Republic is fighting a war only to find out that the true enemy is the Chancellor. Who is the enemy here? But do we have a friend here? Or is Maliki a Sith or (Shiite)Lord?

We know that Al Qaeda is an enemy. But what are we really fighting for in Iraq now.

Posted by: DavidE at January 11, 2007 10:33 AM

Saddam's regime was an essential counterweight for Iran. Propping Saddam and playing Iraq angainst Iran would have been in our national interest, and removing Saddam has harmed us immensely.

The Neocon hostility against Saddam was *not* at all irrational, but these peoples' agenda has nothing to do with the national interest of the USA.

Posted by: george_rem at January 11, 2007 10:35 AM

Hugh, Saddam was doing his part in 'dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam'. He was very effectively deepening the Shia-Sunni conflict, was an enemy of the Iranians, and was cracking down on Islamists. Saddam was perfect for the US.

Posted by: george_rem at January 11, 2007 10:39 AM

Is there something "radical" about restoring the Persian Empire? We hear liberals whining about how these little countries are "artificial democracies" set up by the British or Americans after WW1. So is most of Africa and other former-colonial teritories, but we can't abandon them so simply, can we? Last night they were praising the "architecture" and "cultural heritage" of Tehran, it reminded me of reports of Clinton weeping when he heard some popular artist was the victim of one of his high-altitude bomb sprinklings. Funny no one talked about "collateral damage" and "innocent civilians" back then?

Posted by: Catawhumpus at January 11, 2007 10:44 AM

the lessons in Somalie, Afganistan, that when you leave before the work is done, you allow terrorist organizations to take hold. l would like to see more fire power like what happened in Dresden.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 11, 2007 10:45 AM

Ah yes. "If we don't fight them over there, they will follow us home."

"They will follow us home."

A statement made by many, who think that no one will challenge the idiocy of such a remark. How exactly?

I'll tell you how.

In the ways that are already occuring. For every time people get off a plane or a boat who are Muslim, who believe in Islam, who adhere to the teachings of Islam, who are taught that their loyalty is only to Islam and the umma al-islamiyya, and that there is a natural divison of the world between Believer and Infidel, and that the world belongs to the first, so that Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are in a state of permanent, uncompromsing conflict, and furthermore that mere mortal man has a duty to submit to the will, not of other mere mortal men (which is the basis of all advanced Western democracies), nor to accord to mere mortal men rights which contradict Islam (those rights, including the right of free speech, and freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of men and women, and of all faiths, are also now part of, deemed essential to, those advanced Western democracies), then those people getting off those planes or boats carry with them undeclareed in their mental baggage a belief-system, for most of them unshakeable, that has in time and space proven inimical to all non-Muslims, sometimes leading to forcible mass conversion, sometimes leading to mass killings (as the 60-70 million Hindus killed by Muslim invaders and rulers), and sometimes, by the infliction, sooner or later, of that status which, according to the immutable Shari'a, must be ipmosed on non-Muslims under Muslim rule -- the status of the dhimmi, which is to say a status of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity.

And because Muslims are inculcated with the idea of Muslim superiority, and the natural right of Muslims to rule and Muslim institutions to prevail, and since further they have a duty, sometimes collective and sometimes individual, to participate in Jihad (which need not involve military force, for money, propaganda, Da'wa, and demographic conquest are also instruments of Jihad), it is clear that they cannot, and cannot rationally be expected to be, supporters of the legal and political institutions of Infidels, nor of their social arrangements and understandings (though they may temporarily acquiesce in such arrangements and begrudgingly accept, for now, those legal and political institutions) -- for these are flatly contradicted by Islam.

Islam "is to dominate and is not to be dominated." Muhammad said that. Muhamamd, the exemplar of right conduct (uswa hasana), Muhammad the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil).

It is folly not to take Islam seriously. It is folly to entrust the teaching of Islam to apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim. It is folly not to study the canonical texts, and what are made of those texts by imams and jurisconsults and such figures as al-Qaradawi. It is folly to participate, lemming-like, in an act of collective Pollyannism or perhaps merely criminal negligence, as Europeans have discovered, late, as they look around their own countries and discover what the large-scale presence of Muslims has meant, means, will mean, for them.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2007 10:49 AM

So let me get this straight: Bush is now defying the Baker Report, Congress, the military, and the American public by escalating the war...Forgive me for not brimming over with optimism...
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

Posted by: MinorRipper at January 11, 2007 11:11 AM

To stay or to go, how bout we stay here and they go? They should have used a satchel charge to find out if saddam was down in that roach motel. Saddam in the first Gulf war created an environmental disaster in the area after he was largely defeated, he set the oil fields on fire creating a hell on earth, he dumped barrels and barrels of oil into the sea and polluted the water, killing thousands of birds and fish. He loved killing and he was an egomaniac so can anyone say that he would have forgot that we humiliated him in front of the world? The third largest army in the world, destroyed in 44 days. No he would have eventually covertly assisted in the destruction of one of our cities. I think most of us know how to win but no one in power is ready to come right out and say it. They can look to the US fight in the Pacific during WWII not the Nazis. The enemy was not about to surrender so we let them have their way. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/okinawa/default.aspx
Saddam was a mean little man in a small world, in a chess comparison he was perhaps a rook on the world stage although he behaved like a pawn on many occasions. The enemy has many rooks.

Posted by: tgusa at January 11, 2007 11:17 AM

I hope after THIS foolishness is over and we have many dead jihadists the troops can finally start coming home. Let the crazies do what they will afterward.

By the way, I'm not a fan of embedding US troops with the practically worthless Iraqi army. The US will get to do all the dirty work regardless but having these Iraqi "troops" among them will probably cause a lot of needless problems and casualties (for the US).

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 11, 2007 11:20 AM

"Propping Saddam and playing Iraq angainst Iran would have been in our national interest"

......Propping Sadaam is exactly what the US did. and it was the UN who called for an end to Iran/Iraq hostilities...

"the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 598,"

.......Once again, it was the worthless UN that failed.........

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 11, 2007 11:20 AM

Such "staunch allies" as Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan (all of which are not staunch allies, not allies, not friends but enemies) have tried to make the Americans believe that they, the Americans, have to stay in Iraq to "prevent Iran" from taking over. By this what they mean is that the Sunnis should be protected from the Shi'a militia (so that outside Sunnis, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan) will not have to supply money, materiel, and men themselves, and the best way to inveigle the Americans into doing what you want -- all the Arabs, and indeed even non-Arab Muslims, have been so good at this.

Just look at how so many in Washington were snookered by the assurances of plausible Shi'a in exile about how once Saddam Hussein was removed all manner of things would be well, and Iraq would practically be a Light Unto the Muslim Nations. Those Shi'a-in-exile, or some of them, may simply have misremembered the violence and aggression of their own Muslim country, having been away so long, and having allowed themselves to believe that it was all a matter of Saddam Hussein (did they forget how Nuri es-Said died? Or Qassem? Or the history of coups and counter-coups and massacres and tribal rebellions in Iraq? Apparently, they did, or convinced themselves that they, those most unrepresentative men, were representative of some non-existent Iraq).

And now it is the turn of the Sunni Arabs to snooker the Americans. And by raising the specter of Iran as the sole worry, and insisting that the best way to deal with Iran is to stand up for the Sunnis and Sunni interests in Iraq -- my, how surprising -- they are in fact preventing the Americans from dealing with the most important task involving Iran, which is not to help the Sunnis in Iraq, or to hold back the Shi'a militia (who will not be held back, and the Shi'a government will not really allow those militia to be destroyed or truly disbanded), but to damage or destroy the nuclear weapons project.

Since the Sunni Arabs calculate that those nuclear weapons are likely to be used first against Israel, and the Sunni Arabs would not at all mind an exchange in which Israel were to be destroyed and in turn to destroy much of Iran, that is not what they wish to have the Americans focus on. No, the Sunni Arabs argue, the way to limit the power of Iran is to do two things. One is to help the Sunni Arabs of Iraq, in their brave and principled stance against the Shi'a domination which merely reflects this hideous one-man-one-vote idea. And the second, of course, is to pressure Israel, to force it to give up still more territory to the Arabs, in order, and now a look of the utmost sincerity from Mubarak, from Abdullah of Jordan, from assorted Saudi potentates and powers, is directed at the American official with whom that particular Sunni Arab ruler is speaking, "that is the best way to deprive Iran of its appeal to the Arab street."

In other words, throw Israel to this particular pack of wolves, and let the leaders of that pack howl with delight and claims that "see, we're the ones who managed to achieve the further weakening of Israel" and not that other pack of wolves over there, the ones who live in Teheran.

It is disguseting that such obvious manipulation should succeeed. But the limitless credulity of people who, because they refuse to sit still and study Islam -- how many books on Islam do you think Bush and Rice have managed to read, and what might those books have been? -- both the texts (and what the authors of tafsir, or commentators on the Qur'an, have made of those texts), and the teachings of Islam as demonstrated in the behavior of Muslims, over the past 1350 years of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and in the current behavior of Muslims, toward non-Muslims in the countries where Islam now rules, and the behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslim legal and political institutions in the countries still under the control of non-Muslims.

One can keep avoiding finding things out, or telling oneself they cannot possibly be true, because then the responsibility to deal with that reality becomes, for some, simply too complicated and troubling. Or one can continue to pretend that one grasps the key matter at hand, and that all kinds of brilliant strategies exist, are being executed, but are deliberately being kept hidden from the public.

Or one can get out the way -- or in an election be forced out of the way-- so that those who understand that one of the responsibilities of rule is to fully inform onself about things, and right now, above all other things, about Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2007 11:43 AM

By embeding our troops with the worthless Iraq army we will kill a lot Jihadists and won't have any questions about who shot whom.

Busch unfortunately hasn't a clue or at least is covering up what he does know. I'm glad that at least his references were to Islamic Facists. All of the negative references help.

Things will get better when CAIR or some Muslim-Islamic pressure group gets pissed at the Dhimmicrats because they couldn't get something done to help them. The Boxer thing has legs. Recinding something to these Ba*tards always shows them up in a negative way.

I figure that it says somewhere in the bible that Pride goeth before a fall. I believe that the statement applies in spades to the Muslim-Islamics of this world. They show their motives all the time.

Remember, "Islamophobia will keep you alive."

Posted by: credit man at January 11, 2007 11:46 AM

Hugh - Excellent commentary as usual. I have often thought too that Bush could never be a chess player (irony - "checkmate" supposedly comes from the Persian "shah-mat" = the king is dead).

But I have concluded that it wouldn't be simply a matter that he couldn't master tactics and strategy - I think he couldn't even learn the rules of piece movement. And anymore, I doubt he could even learn the names of the pieces... "My horsey is going to take your castle..."

Posted by: BunrattyBill at January 11, 2007 11:51 AM

"when Capablanca, in 1928, at Bad Kissingen, makes a certain move, it is exactly the right move, and his famous oponenent (Alekhine?) will as a result lose that game a few moves later."

--posted by Hugh

Efim Bogoljubov vs Jose Raul Capablanca, Bad Kissingen, Germany

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1030854

Capa's 41st move perhaps?

Posted by: Mike_W at January 11, 2007 12:05 PM

When the smoke clears. Iran will have bullied the world with its nuclear program and, established a Shiite crescent from Iran, Iraq, Bahrain (which it will seize) and into Lebanon. That is what we have 'accomplished' with a half trillion dollars, 3,000 dead, many thousands wounded.

Israel will be threatened both long distance and on its borders. And the U.S. will be pushed into the role of defending the Gulf Sheikhdoms against Iran (meanwhile sacrficing our only natural ally, Israel).

So! First we give away the Mideast to the Shia which we are doing now with both hands and then we are stuck in the role of defending the Sunni (Wahhabi, al Qaeda and all) from them.

Excuse me a moment, my breakfast is coming up.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at January 11, 2007 12:17 PM

"For every time people get off a plane..." [Hugh]

Hugh, I am in total "agreeance" with you on this, great post.

Also, I would like to nominate you for the above for the "Longest Sentence In The English Language Award"!

Posted by: EricInTexas at January 11, 2007 12:22 PM

There is only one solution to this that will ever work. That is the 3 state solution. We will spin our wheels with this unity government stuff for eternity. Oh the other solution would be to build a time machine and take care of Mo and his group before they get started. One aircraft carrier OVERKILL would be great it would look like the hand of God. One more thing I wish they would stop it with the word "radical" Islam. There is only one Islam to use such a phrase makes you sound uninformed Mr. President.

Posted by: ethoman at January 11, 2007 12:47 PM

The mainstream media has elected Obama as the next president of the U.S.

Anyone else notice that? After the speech usually the media interview a powerful opposing politician. I saw two networks and they were both Obama. A junior politician with no foreign policy experience who has not even officially thrown his hat in to the ring.

With Ellison writing laws in the Judiciary commitee and Obama making sure they don't get vetoed in the executive office the US is doomed.

Obama knows all about islam. His father was a muslim and he lived in Indonesia with his muslim stepfather. I don't know how smart he can possibly be having the genes of a mother willing to marry muslims twice.

Of course he will be on 'the islam is a religion of peace' and muslims are mostly 'moderate' and 'the religion is being hijacked' strain of islam side. How could he not be?

Posted by: Borg at January 11, 2007 12:48 PM

If there is a potential bright spot in all of this, and it is certainly hard to find one, it is this: Thousands of US soldiers, despite the Pentagon's best efforts at brainwashing and obfuscation, are coming back home with their eyes wide open about islam and its adherents. In the not-to-distant future, they will be an important element of the West's efforts to save itself.

Posted by: Infidel33 at January 11, 2007 12:51 PM

INFIDEL33-

- Please tell us more!!

Posted by: poetcomic1 at January 11, 2007 1:03 PM

You should be aware that the entire Iraq and Afghanistan and that area, is glowing with harmful radioactivity. Our kid soldiers are glowing with Depleted Uranium ( a misnomer - since it's not depleted). This effects the DNA.

And now to send more of our kids, "clean" of DU.

Yes, bush the satanist (skull&bones) - the congress and the pent-gn knows about it. When any of them have gone to that area of the world, it's only be in and out. IF they've ever really gone.

Their intent is - of course - to destroy us, THe People - the free people - the LAST HOPE of this poor world!

So, don't be so gung-ho to have our kids, our future generations continue there, or for a new batch to be sent.

Those that write back here - denying it - protesting - are only ostriches, afraid to face the truth.

Posted by: allat at January 11, 2007 1:10 PM

Infidel exellent point this has been a much needed (I speak for myself as well) learning experience for Americans and the west in general. We now know that The word "Radical Islam" is like saying "Cold Snow" by its very nature it is radical like snow is cold, so if you say "yeah I'm gonna wage war against cold snow" this implies there is warm snow ... well there is but it isn't snow it is watered down snow so the analogy works. I guess you can say non-radical Islam is like warm snow it isn't snow I mean Islam anymore.

Posted by: ethoman at January 11, 2007 1:22 PM

Hugh, you belong on television. The networks wouldn't know what hit them, but the vast majority of the viewing audience needs to hear what you say.

Posted by: miira at January 11, 2007 1:36 PM

"Efim Bogoljubov vs Jose Raul Capablanca, Bad Kissingen, Germany

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1030854

Capa's 41st move perhaps?"
-- from a posting above

Thank you for the suggestion. But it wasn't in a game with Bogoljubov that Capablanca made the move I had in mind.

I now realize I had the tournament right (Bad Kissingen, 1928) and Capablanca, but not the name of Capablanca's opponent. That opponent was Nimzowitsch. I remember reading about it, many years ago in one of those excellent Horowitz-Reinfeld guides for the novice. For some reason it stuck in my mind. But when I wrote the above, all I could think of was Alekhine.

I did see John Turturro acting crazy in "The Defense" within the last few years. And since Luzhin is much more gloomy Alekhine than sunny Capablanca, I may have automatically thought of Alekhine. Though, come to think of it, Nimzowitsch is also a perfect name, when you are trying to remember the name of some chess player, at Bad Kissingen, in 1928.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2007 2:05 PM

Bush, for all his faults, and he has many, is just trying to save face AND maybe accomplish a thing or two. If the Democrtas call for immediate troop withdrawal, then common sense says send more in.

Nearly as important as his references to "radical" Islam, as opposed to "terror", is the declaration that our stay in Iraq is not indefinite. Before year's end will suffice, so we can move on to more important endeavors. Is there any reason why, when Maliki fails to disarm Sadr and his boys as we all know he will, that the US should not absolutely crush them?

Bush's myopic, utopian end for Iraq is just that. His degree of mental reparation, if any, I cannot comment on but, contrary to Hugh's opinion, I do not believe Bush or anyone else can prevent the continuation of the civil war in Iraq after our departure. Everything that the Islamists have said and done to date tells me just that. Indescriminate slaughter, as many as you can, and then bug-out and let them finish each other off. This is a war...right?

Hindsight dictates that the whole undertaking, from the moment Hussein was pulled from his hole in the ground, was a lesson in futility. The question is, what exactly to do about it now.

Hugh?

Posted by: awake at January 11, 2007 2:09 PM

Hugh- of course they are going to follow us home regardless of whether we win in Iraq or not- However, they were going to continue to hit us regardless of whether we went to Iraq or not- At least we are over there hitting them first instead of doing nothing and letting them hit us here at will- we are hitting htem in their nest- instead of hte other way around. Had we not gone to Iraq- the terrorists would have free reign and unparalled financial support to become a true power against all us infidels.

Iraq was a duel purpose endeavor- one to stop a mass murderer and establish a democracy- a VERY important democracy in a strategic position in the middle east, and two- a war on terror by cutting off their blood supply in the middle east-

Yes, MUCH needs to happen still- but my gosh- MUCH has already been done and at a great cost- Much has been done both there and here in the states. and yes, much still needs to be done- however, we're in the fight of our lives, and it can't be perfect or accomplished quickly on all fronts simultaniously. Yep- some stuff is happening that are less than ideal, however, don't poo-poo the whole effort when so muych has already been done. It's easy to see only the negatives and think all is not well, however, there are many things going on behind the scenes that are never reported- or reported obscurely that have been done to protect us.

http://sacredscoop.com

Posted by: CottShop at January 11, 2007 2:21 PM

"contrary to Hugh's opinion, I do not believe Bush or anyone else can prevent the continuation of the civil war in Iraq after our departure.."
-- from a posting above

You have misunderstood. I havenever said that anyone can prevent the Sunni-Shi'a hostilities from continuing. Quite the contrary. I said it was a fool's errand, in two different ways, even to try to dampen that hostility.

The first is that such hostility is in our interest, for it helps to divide and demoralize and hence to weaken the Camp of Islam. And it merely exploits a pre-existing condition within Islam, and if we are lucky, the Sunni-Shi'a split within Iraq will have consequences in Lebanon, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even Yemen, where there have been and are problems between local Sunnis and local Shi'a.

The second is that such hostilities, or "civil war" as you put it, cannot be permanently prevented, only held in check as long as the Americans remain, and then not very well.

I never said that Bush or anyone else could "prevent the continuation" of a civil war.

Indeed, I argued the exact opposite.

I hope you understand that.

Posted by: Hugh at January 11, 2007 3:09 PM

Maliki holds all of the cards. If we leave, his 80% plan kicks off. As long as he promises to be good and pretends to play nice, he can continue to milk the West for more money, guns, and armor. ‘Warning’ the Iraqi government is delusional.

It's time to re-deploy to an isolated airbase in New Kurdistan. Their job is to stay safe and be ready to unleash when the time comes. It is surreal to me that we are using our military to protect the Iraqi people from each other.

Posted by: pez at January 11, 2007 3:16 PM

"That opponent was Nimzowitsch. I remember reading about it, many years ago in one of those excellent Horowitz-Reinfeld guides for the novice."

--posted by Hugh

Ah, I think I know the game.

Aron Nimzowitsch vs Jose Raul Capablanca
"The Other Immortal Zugzwang"
New York 1927 · Caro-Kann Defense: Advance Variation

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007846&kpage=3

Capablanca's 45th move, 45...Rc1 created a situation referred to as Zugzwang.
Zugzwang is a position where a player wishes he could pass, but because he is forced
to make a move, he loses.

Perhaps the force of reason will eventually give civilization an advantage in it's struggle with Islam and chess is an interesting metaphor.
As former World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker said,
"On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not survive long.".

Posted by: Mike_W at January 11, 2007 3:53 PM

Do not have too much faith in "Iraqi troops." They weren't worth much (except for some elite units) under Saddam in his three wars (Iran, Gulf, "Iraqi freedom").

Although we've seen and heard US military spokespeople trying to make us believe that more training will result in Iraqi forces that can take over from US troops, as the cliche goes "the proof's in the pudding."

Waiting until Iraqi troops are "up to snuff" with US forces sustaining casualties, does not appear to be a winning strategy.

Bush is befuddled, despite his brave talk. He is not willing to realize that the Iraqi government is not, and never will be, on "our side."

It's Islam, stupid.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 11, 2007 4:00 PM

Pez wrote: "Maliki holds all of the cards."

If we were to seize the Iraqi oil fields, we would be holding all the cards.

In Iraq, we have never fought for the oil, but, apart from the usual Islamic martyrdom, that is what the Muslims are fighting for, aginst us and against each other. Jihad costs lots of money. After all, they somehow have to pay the "salaries" of all those Islamic "insurgents" and hate-spewing imams.

No oil money, no Islamic loot, no jihad.

Posted by: Stendec at January 11, 2007 4:01 PM

Stendec is right. But the West has progressed to the point where ‘We’ can no longer appear in the form of a democratic nation of 300 million people. There is just too much baggage for it to be realistic.

‘We’ might take the form of Halliburton establishing an energy division in Ethiopia, and an angry Ethiopian population looking for reparations for the slave trade of years past. Ethiopia has fighting men and needs back home, Halliburton has know-how, and Ethiopia’s friends will have AC-130s based in New Kurdistan.

A real State Department would be looking for creative ways to define 'We'.

Posted by: pez at January 11, 2007 4:19 PM

Bush: "It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom."

Comment:

Bush's "burdens of freedom" are not being borne by his administration (nor the Congress) domestically (where we are made more and more un-free by Moslem influence on our institutions).

These "burdens" should not be to bring "democracy" or "freedom' to the benighted--those that are fettered by Islam--but to keep us, the people of the US, free.

America must try and shoulder the "burdens of freedom" by figuring out how to counter the onslaught of Islam--domestically as well as internationally.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 11, 2007 4:21 PM

George Bush ist Zugzwang!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at January 11, 2007 4:49 PM

In time Iraq will go the way of the former Yugoslavia and will end up in 3 seperate nations.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at January 11, 2007 5:10 PM

I hate to be sticking up for Bush on this one, but hear me out. Bush and the Democrats are lying. The announced plan is that we, along with Iraqi (Shia) troops, will clear Baghdad of Shia militias, including Sadr's Mehdi (Shia) Army to make the capital safe for a government run by Shia, who according to the New York Times, don't want to share power with anyone. Huh? Even those ignorant of Islam can't possibly believe that this could lead the Shia to compromise its dominance.

However, what if the troop surge is intended to clear Baghdad to make it safe to evacuate the green zone? Everyone in Washington wants to avoid a repeat of the humiliating exit from the embassy in Vietnam. But why not just say so? Because the enemy could inflict far more casualties on us if they knew ahead of time that we were merely facilitating our evacuation.

Did you notice that days before the speech, Pelosi said the Dems wouldn't fund a "surge," but that their response after the speech was little more than "just kidding." In the hour before Bush's speech, he briefed the Dems on the content of his address. Why would he do that? So that they would keep the plan secret, fund the troop surge, and not overdo the political rhetoric before it had gone so far that they would have had no choice but to fight Bush on it.

Posted by: bobnoxious at January 11, 2007 5:22 PM

From Bush's speech

And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I wish at least this one little statement was true. Would he have the nerve to follow that trail of weaponry and training, to where it actually led: Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt? But if he doesn't dare name the enemy, he won't dare visualize in his own brain who is supplying the enemy, most of them being "good friends" and "staunch allies" and whatnot.

On a different note, for a moment, when he said "our enemies in Iraq", I thought he was starting to catch on. Just for a moment.

I like Pez and Stendec's thinking above. And what can one say about Hugh when he's on a roll, other than "Look out!!".

Posted by: special_guest at January 11, 2007 5:36 PM

bigcatgirl13106 said

In time Iraq will go the way of the former Yugoslavia and will end up in 3 seperate nations.

And the way of Israel/(Trans-)Jordan, and India/Pakistan, and Russia/Chechnya. It seems that the Christian/Jewish/Hindu/atheist conspiracy against the Muslims is worldwide.

Posted by: special_guest at January 11, 2007 5:59 PM

I thought that Baseball was Bush's game. And he was brilliant then too - like when he traded Sammy Sosa

Looks like he'll do for the US what he did for the TX Rangers

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 11, 2007 7:01 PM

Why exists this strange feeling (suspicion) that everything that has been, and is being, done is in favor of our "friends and allies" the Saudi Arabs?

Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 11, 2007 7:14 PM

A "radical Islamic empire":

Please, Mr. President, could you explain the difference between 'radical' and 'regular' Islamic empires?

I've always been confused about this.

Posted by: PRCS at January 11, 2007 8:52 PM

As your entrusted President, in short; what I'm saying is, "We're taking back the Goose but we're leaving the golden egg !"

Posted by: Jeff at January 11, 2007 10:13 PM

If we were to seize the Iraqi oil fields, we would be holding all the cards.

And how long, exactly, do we hold onto those oil fields? Become a permanent occupying force?

No oil money, no Islamic loot, no jihad.

No oil money accelerates the drug trade. Where there's a jihad there's a way.

Posted by: guest worker at January 12, 2007 12:23 AM

guestworker wrote: "And how long, exactly, do we hold onto those oil fields? Become a permanent occupying force?"

The answer is, we hold the oil fields until we pump the wells dry, or until the Iraqis decide to "make nice" with each other (that means until we pump the wells dry). We occupy nothing and nowhere, except the oil fields themselves--we keep them as war reparations. We use the oil revenues to fund our global anti-jihad operations. (Any wells that cannot be held should be destroyed.)

And: "No oil money accelerates the drug trade. Where there's a jihad there's a way."

That's true to some extent--jihad will never be stopped cold as long as there are brain dead followers of Mohammed. Jihad (Islam) is an enormous international criminal enterprise. But these criminals are paying no price for their renewed attack on humanity. We need to make them pay a price.

Pumping oil at outrageous inflated prices is the easiest way for them to finance their quest for world domination. As a strategic move, we need to take that easy source of funding away from them. Without it, they could not fund their Islamic armies, their nuclear and bio-terror projects, or their mosques (forts) in the west.

In Iraq and elsewhere, the Muslims have displayed for all to see that they consider their oil wealth not as a means to better the economic well-being of native populations, but rather as a weapon to fund an ancient plot to enslave the rest of humanity.

By not recognizing that Islam has declared war on us, we are acting as idiots. By not taking this obvious powerful weapon away from the Islamic war machine, we are acting as romantic, sentimental fools.

Posted by: Stendec at January 12, 2007 10:21 AM

georgerem , you wrote :

"Saddam's regime was an essential counterweight for Iran. Propping Saddam and playing Iraq angainst Iran would have been in our national interest, and removing Saddam has harmed us immensely."

"Hugh, Saddam was doing his part in 'dividing and demoralizing the Camp of Islam'. He was very effectively deepening the Shia-Sunni conflict, was an enemy of the Iranians, and was cracking down on Islamists. Saddam was perfect for the US."

Absolutely right .

HOW TO SPOT A LEMON

Part 1 You know Bush is a prize lemon when his first speech after 911 was all about how "islam is the religion of peace" . Thousand of his citizens had just died the most horrible of deaths , and this grade A gonzoid was in "let's have love fest" mood.

5 years on , a trillion bucks down the toilet , along with 1,000's of lives , and George "I can't even make a revenge speech"Bush , is about to chuck a further 30,000 lives into the hell hole.

Part 2 Nowhere , and I do mean nowhere , in any of his speeches is any kind of definite objective in mind . Your local factory that makes plastic Mickey Mouses will have clear and concise plans when flogging the four legged friend to overseas customers . Here , we're talking of lives , a war , and there's not a detailed timetable / war objective in sight .

Boy , I thought Clinton was bad : And the new generation of Democ*nts make Bush seem like an MIT whizz kid . F*&k , we're in for a rough ride.

Posted by: ewha1 at January 13, 2007 4:05 AM