| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Some have asserted that if we leave Iraq, it will amount to abandoning our responsibilities there, and foregoing an opportunity to exert a positive influence in the region.
Of course, The Americna government does not need to exert a "positive influence" if by that one means winning hearts and minds. Such efforts are, as has been demonstrated again and again, futile and self-defeating when those hearts and those minds are Muslim.
Many, furthermore, make the same mistake as Bush has made: they interpret as "having influence" only the doing of certain things, rather than ceasing to do certain things that are now being done and should not be done.
If, for example, the American government were to halt the disguised Jizyah of foreign aid to countries whose governments are meretricious, and whose peoples hate the United States, that would exert the right kind of influence. For the hate of those people is encouraged, not quite paradoxically, by the media campaigns that are either allowed or encouraged by their governments (as in Egypt), or are encouraged by the fact of our aid being seen as propping up despotic governments (Egypt, Pakistan). Or else that aid is misused for the purposes of making war on fellow Infidel lands (all aid to the so-called "Palestinians," the name given to local Arabs in Gaza and the "West Bank," falls into that category). Wouldn't the halting of aid be as much of an influential act as the provision of it was in the first place?
Isn't educating one's population about Islam more important now than sending more brigades to Iraq? That may not conform to most people's idea of "war," but it matters far more how many people in the West stop accepting the versions of Islam of apologists for Islam, Muslim and non-Muslim, with all the plausible Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque, than how many troops we have trying to bring democracy to a place where virtually no one wants it.
My wish for an American withdrawal from in Iraq has been reinforced by recent news about the shortages in military equipment for training (and in both army and National Guard armories), and from the fact that it now is greatly damaging to military morale. Recently an article appeared noting that 46% of all post-2001 West Point graduates have now left the military. This is an unprecedented figure. And besides those graduates of West Point, many of the best young officers are leaving the services. Who will replace them? How much time and money will go into finding them, and training them? And what of the members of the National Guard and Reserve who are sent back for more than one tour, an unprecedented demand and one which those affected, or many of them, believe violates a clear undertaking on the government's side? Will they re-enlist? Will they recommend to others that they join the Reserves or National Guard, given the kine of treatment being given them that this Administration apparently thinks it can get away with? Troops are perfectly willing to go to Iraq once. But the severe drop in morale comes when they, after their first tour, having seen Iraq, and the "Iraqis," and having measured the distance between the hallucinators in Washington (and some of the more pliant generals) with their prattle about the "mission" and "getting the job done" and what their own experience in Iraq, (with their very own boots on the ground), taught them, are asked to go back. Do you think so many have left the service, including those once committed West Point graduates, because they are "scared to fight"? I don't. I think this can be attributed, rather, to the fact that they have discovered in Iraq that the "mission" is pointless and the waste of American servicemen's lives at this point is both stupid and cruel.
So shall we "walk away from our responsibilities in Iraq"? What "responsibilities in Iraq"? This is merely a variant on the Friedmanesque "we broke it, we bought it" nonsense. We don't have "responsibilities" toward anyone but ourselves, to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad that threatens our continued existence. We don't have to try to fix the innate aggression of Muslim peoples and their inability to compromise with each other. That aggression is based on their worldview, which is provided by Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira. It leads them to view outcomes of warfare always as a matter of Victor and Vanquished. We don't have a "responsibility" to undo the effects of Islam in order to make Sunnis and Shi'a behave differently. And we couldn't undo those effects, in that way, no matter how prolonged the effort.
Finally, the Administration was ignorant, and apparently intends to stay ignorant, not only of the fact of sectarian (and ethnic) fissures, but of their depth and duration. Only those unaware of how deep those fissures are, and how they go back to the very first century of Islam (in the case of the Sunni-Shi'a divide) could conceivably think that the American government, if it does not somehow solve this insolvable problem, is "walking away from its responsibilities in Iraq." These problems go back to the essence of Islam from its very beginning, as a vehicle for Arab supremacism (in the case of the Kurd-Arab divide, a result of mistreatment of the Kurds by the Arabs over a very long time).
More than four years, and half-a-million officers and men trying their best, in a series of rotations, and the spending of $880 billion in past, present, and future committed costs, more than the total cost of all the wars ever fought by the United States save for World War II, is enough. Is more than enough. "Walk away from our responsibilities in Iraq"? Nonsense.
Posted by Hugh at April 12, 2007 6:50 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"If, for example, the American government were to halt the disguised Jizyah of foreign aid to countries whose governments are meretricious, and whose peoples hate the United States, that would exert a really positive influence."
...an action whose time has come.....and is long overdue....
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 12, 2007 6:56 AM
Hugh's thesis may be correct in its entirety. But I hope we can all agree that there are some risks involved....
1) By leaving Iraq, our ability to affect the fate of the Iraqi Kurds is seriously compromised. This is relevant both in humanitarian terms and in the cause of diminishing Arab influence in the Muslim world.
2) The anticipated interminable Shia-Sunni fissure in Iraq is not a given; radicals in both camps could make common cause, either by uniting under a radical personality (most likely Shia) or by carving up the country between themselves.
3) It DOES matter who is in power in Iraq....and Jordan....and Algeria.....and throughout the Muslim world. For us to be indifferent to this fact is the equivalent of saying Algeria is a threat of equal magnitude as Iran is.
at April 12, 2007 8:30 AM
"For us to be indifferent to this fact is the equivalent of saying Algeria is a threat of equal magnitude as Iran is."
....Muslims attacks where ever they pop up are all part of the Islamic battle plan and should be viewed as a viable threat on your freedom and security....by attacking worldwide, Islam is trying to bankrupt the western world and divide its strengths...If the Muslim onslaught is allowed to continue, the world is in for a slow death...
at April 12, 2007 8:41 AM
exsgtbrown,
Why did 'Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magrheb' try to kill Algeria's PM yesterday? Why is 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' suddenly bombing their fellow Sunnis with chlorine truck bombs in Ramadi?
Because not all Muslims are the same. Robert Spencer understands that. Why can't you?
Posted by: Cornelius at April 12, 2007 8:49 AM
Not all Muslims are the same.....
"There are between 1.2 and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Half are women. While a substantial percentage of Islamic women support jihad, less than one in fifty Islamic terrorist acts is actually perpetrated by a female. That leaves us with a maximum pool of jihadists that is just over 50% of the total population.
The overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by young Muslim men 15 to 30 years old. This age bracket covers about half of the male population of the Islamic world, leaving us with a potential jihad pool of 25% of all Muslims - approximately 300 million people."
......and this jihad pool is on an ever increasing wave of violence....an army of 300 million....garners my attention...it should garner everyone's attention...
...all Muslims follow the Qur'an...it is only a matter of time and all Muslims will be just alike..one indistinguishable from the other...
It is Islam...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Posted by: exsgtbrown
......and this jihad pool is on an ever increasing wave of violence....an army of 300 million....garners my attention...it should garner everyone's attention....
...all Muslims follow the Qur'an...it is only a matter of time and all Muslims will be just alike...one indistinguishable from the other...
---------------------------------------------------
300 Million?!? You would think with that many Jihadists one would be exploding every minute! And you and I would not be surfing the web but be drafted for the frontlines somewhere in the Middle East.
"one indistinguishable from the other" ... Is that anything like how all blacks are lower race according to our bigoted history? Please Tell me your not a democrate!!
at April 12, 2007 9:35 AM
"... Is that anything like how all blacks are lower race according to our bigoted history?"
....Nope....
....Muslims kill and enslave blacks...been doing it for centuries...
....Blacks along with the Jews should be the most concerned about Muslims...
....Neither Blacks nor Jews compare to the violent Muslims...
....Muslims are the most racist group of people you will ever encounter...
....Black on Black violence is bad, but it is not motivated by religion or by pure hate...Muslim on Muslim violence is...
at April 12, 2007 9:53 AM
"to our bigoted history?"
.....Our short history (about 250 years) has seen some injustices..but The American culture constantly seeks to right any injustices....Black in American have the same rights as any other individual in America, you can vote, you can own land, you can get an education, you can travel as you please, you can, by working hard and investing wisely, secure a nice retirement, you can choose your job, you can elevate yourself being only limited by your self initiative, you can choose your religion, your friends, your lifestyle, you can choose to be free or in jail....
...In Islam you can choose to be Muslim or choose to be dead...
at April 12, 2007 9:59 AM
US Leaving Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda wants----------------WHY???????? should be the debate.
Posted by: paulc37 at April 12, 2007 11:49 AM
What al-quaeda wants is irrelevant. US is a world power and should act like one. Any action which is likely to produce results in defending a vital national interest should be taken regardless of the wishes of external powers and groups. A powerfull country with capable intelligence services and military is able to do what alquadeda wants, but achieve an effect which alquaeda did not want or expect.
As for the other popular argument:"we dont know all the confidential information that the President has, therefore he is right, but can not tell why" - this is not how politics works. Equally important to having confidential information is the ability to justify the necessary actions by plausible arguments. A good politician/cabinet is capable of defending publicly and internationally their politics, without having to disclose all their motives.
We are close to a tipping point now. The course of action in the near future will play significant role in the outcome of the War on jihad. Way too often an external attack on a dictatorial regime only strenghtens the dictatorship. Soviet Union was most stable internally after WWII. Isolated and left with its own internal fissures (gently stimulated from outside) it crumbled as will any socium which claims to enforce paradise and God's will on Earth. Civilizing by force works, but it has to be internal force. If the internal force is absent, then the society needs to endure enough internal problems to create it's own civilizing force.
Posted by: Excommie at April 12, 2007 12:42 PM
Contrary to popular belief, re-enlistment rates in the Army are sky high. Officer attrition rates have been high since the end of the Cold War.
Posted by: danceswithgoats at April 12, 2007 3:03 PM
"re-enlistment rates in the Army are sky high..."
-- from a posting above
The U.S. military has had to:
1) spend a billion dollars on recruitment, and on gigantic bonuses, in the last few years, in order to obtain, and then retain, both officers and men.
2) had to raise the age of those it would take to 42.
3) had to change policies on recruits to allow in some with less education than the minimum that used to be required (which was not very much) and others with criminal records. What this does to quality, the level of trust and cohesion in units, you can guess for yourself.
Furthermore, you write, I assume, about the regular army, with its soldiers who come in young, who are trained to obey, and who are less likely to question the "mission" and whether it makes sense than are the older, and less trained-to-absolute-obedience members of the National Guard and the Reserves. And they have different views, as you can see if you look at the January 2006 opinion poll of soldiers taken in Iraq itself, on support among the military for withdrawal from that country." Reserves and the National Guard are less ready to simply accept and obey a party line, and in both branches of the citizen army re-enlistment rates, and recuitment rates are down, and even though the target levels to be met keep going down, they are not being met. You know that perfectly well.
Posted by: Hugh at April 12, 2007 3:38 PM
Which opinion poll would you be quoting?
Just curious. TY.
at April 12, 2007 4:41 PM
Cornelius said
By leaving Iraq, our ability to affect the fate of the Iraqi Kurds is seriously compromised.
But now we are hamstrung by our desire to appear "evenhanded" to the Shi'a and the Sunnis in Iraq. If we give up the pretense that all Iraqis are equally our "ally", and assist those who most closely match our goals, that can only work to the favor of the Kurds. Of course, there will be fallout for Turkey and Iran; that fallout is long overdue.
The anticipated interminable Shia-Sunni fissure in Iraq is not a given; radicals in both camps could make common cause
True, but looking at 1000+ years of Islamic history, that's extemely unlikely, especially if certain powers made a concerted effort to remind both parties of the atrocities committed by the other. And anyways, if the Shi'a-Sunni split is going to be healed, it's going to be healed regardless of whether we stay in Iraq for a few more years or decades. You cannot be claiming that if we leave Iraq, the rift will be healed, and if we stay, the rift will remain in place. They're going to do what they're going to do; not everything that happens in the world is under the control of the U.S. or U.K. or Canada or Australia.
or by carving up the country between themselves
Agreeing to carve up Iraq on sectarian lines is the opposite of finding common cause. The fallout of such a division would go on for decades. Decades of intra-Islamic violence, consuming vast resources from both Sunni and Shi'a donor states. I'm swooning.
is the equivalent of saying Algeria is a threat of equal magnitude as Iran is
Right, not all Islamic states are equal. But it doesn't follow that "hot wars" are the only way, or the best way, to influence those states. "Hot wars" are very expensive, by every measure. They are not the weapon of choice against an enemy who will require decades or centuries to defeat.
BTW, maybe I just have missed it, but I haven't seen you post for a while, Cornelius. Good to read your posts again.
Posted by: special_guest at April 12, 2007 5:06 PM
SPECIAL GUEST on the Kurdish question: "But now we are hamstrung by our desire to appear "evenhanded" to the Shi'a and the Sunnis in Iraq. If we give up the pretense that all Iraqis are equally our "ally", and assist those who most closely match our goals, that can only work to the favor of the Kurds. Of course, there will be fallout for Turkey and Iran; that fallout is long overdue."
RESPONSE: Not sure what you mean here. All I know is that with a physical presence in Iraq, we are all too capable of ensuring a successful Kurdish autonomy. Once we've left, all bets are off.
This is not necessarily a sufficient reason to stay in Iraq; I'm just pointing out the potential repercussions of leaving.
SPECIAL GUEST on Shia-Sunni relations: "True, but looking at 1000+ years of Islamic history, that's extemely unlikely, especially if certain powers made a concerted effort to remind both parties of the atrocities committed by the other. And anyways, if the Shi'a-Sunni split is going to be healed, it's going to be healed regardless of whether we stay in Iraq for a few more years or decades. You cannot be claiming that if we leave Iraq, the rift will be healed, and if we stay, the rift will remain in place. They're going to do what they're going to do; not everything that happens in the world is under the control of the U.S. or U.K. or Canada or Australia."
RESPONSE: Hugh's thesis is based upon the premise that washing our hands of Iraq will foster a Shia-Sunni Civil War that will distract the Muslim world from its Jihad against the West. It is a very plausible scenario.
Equally plausible is that the dynamics unleashed by a US pullout could result in something entirely different happening...not necessarily an epic burying of the confessional hatchet, but a purely tactical alliance between radical Shia and Sunni based on expediency, much like the one currently existing between Shia Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas, Shia Iran and Sunni Al Qaeda, etc.
In spite of common perceptions about the rigidity of Islamic dogma, Muslims have a tribal mentality that is notoriously fickel. Clans, tribes, ethnic groups and even countries in Dar ul Islam can be bribed, bought or threatened into ever-changing loyalties depending on circumstance. Self-interest is a very prominent feature of the Muslim psyche.
SPECIAL GUEST: "Agreeing to carve up Iraq on sectarian lines is the opposite of finding common cause. The fallout of such a division would go on for decades. Decades of intra-Islamic violence, consuming vast resources from both Sunni and Shi'a donor states. I'm swooning."
RESPONSE: On the contrary, an amicable parting of the ways is certainly possible if not probable. Anbar would become a Talibanized Sunni heartland, the Shia south would become a theocratic mirror-image on Iran, and the Kurds would be up a creek without a paddle. We'd be fools not to prepare for at least the possibility of such an eventuality in the aftermath of US withdrawal.
SPECIAL GUEST: "Right, not all Islamic states are equal. But it doesn't follow that "hot wars" are the only way, or the best way, to influence those states. "Hot wars" are very expensive, by every measure. They are not the weapon of choice against an enemy who will require decades or centuries to defeat."
RESPONSE: I certainly can't argue with this point. The only caveat is that we're already there in Iraq. I think we'd be better off leaving behind a stable-as-possible, pluralistic, quasi-democracy...rather than by leaving the field to the extremists and hope they fight it out. This is where Hugh and I disagree. But he has some powerful arguments on his side, particularly the cost of blood and treasure. We both want out, it's just that he seems to want chaos in the aftermath; I'd rather see Iraq stabilized so that Iran and Al Qaeda are kept at bay.
SPECIAL GUEST: "BTW, maybe I just have missed it, but I haven't seen you post for a while, Cornelius. Good to read your posts again."
RESPONSE: Thanks very much. I've been spending my time at a Left-wing European blog, doing battle with radical Leftists and Muslims. It's an unbelievable atmosphere; their world-view is truly surreal. America is perceived as an aggressive, violent country where one is either a millionaire or homeless. And the Muslims are of course victims in perpetuity. When one quotes a Hadith that is unflattering to the Prophet, one is castigated as a racist, bigot, etc. Robert Spencer is considered - along with Ali Sina and Daniel Pipes - as Satan's emissaries. The level of ignorance is quite depressing.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 12, 2007 6:41 PM
Cornelius said
Not sure what you mean here.
It's like the coaches son: he may be the best on the team, but his father will purposely keep him sidelined to show that he is not "favoring" his son. The Kurds deserve our assistance much more than the Iraqi Sunnis. But if the U.S. were to show preference to the Kurds, the Sunnis and Shi'a would immediately revolt. So in the interest of keeping the appearance of impartiality, we are prevented from helping the Kurds. If we pull out of Iraq, and stop pretending to represent all Iraqis equally, we can more openly support the Kurds. And by "supporting the Kurds" I definitely do NOT mean putting U.S. troops on the ground in an independent Kurdistan, which may be what you have in mind. Let the Kurds fight their own battles, with our intelligence support, such as it is, and equipment.
I think we'd be better off leaving behind a stable-as-possible, pluralistic, quasi-democracy...rather than by leaving the field to the extremists and hope they fight it out.
To say that anyone hopes the extremists will fight it out may be overstating it. Everyone can hope that tomorrow Islam will transform into a peaceful religion, and tomorrow Iraq will blossom into a true Western pluralistic democracy. That would be to everyone's benefit. But hopes are not the foundation of a sound strategic policy. We have to plan for what is realistic, and act accordingly.
It's an unbelievable atmosphere; their world-view is truly surreal.
Hopefully, you've offered them a viewpoint they wouldn't have otherwise gotten. You never know what effect your words will have on them.
Posted by: special_guest
at April 12, 2007 7:34 PM
"To say that anyone hopes the extremists will fight it out may be overstating it."
I believe that is precisely what Hugh hopes will happen.
"Hopefully, you've offered them a viewpoint they wouldn't have otherwise gotten. You never know what effect your words will have on them."
They despise me as a knuckle-scraping, neandertal Yank....(although a couple of them have grown fond of me on a personal level in spite of my politics). Arguing with Hugh is a tea-party in comparison.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 12, 2007 8:22 PM
Cornelius said
Arguing with Hugh is a tea-party in comparison.
Because he is right.
;-)
Posted by: special_guest at April 12, 2007 9:24 PM
Your figure of 46% of post-2001 West Point graduates having left the military is suspect. Here's why: All academy grads get a five-year service commitment. The overwhelming majority of post-2001 grads are not eligible for separation.
You might research this one a little closer.
at April 18, 2007 11:37 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)