| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Over the years at Jihad Watch I have stressed several principal themes.
These are:
1) That the Iraq venture makes no sense not only because the goal or goals to be achieved are not the right ones, but because they are based on a belief that "democracy" or "freedom" can easily be transplanted, or transplanted at all, into a Muslim society in which most people locate political legitimacy not in the expressed will of mere mortals in their voting, but rather in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an as glossed by the Sunnah (derived from the Hadith and Sira). Mere mortals are slaves of Allah, and their highest and correct role is to be submissive to his will. And his will has by scholars been codified as the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam.
2) That the best way to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad is to have far less direct intervention, indeed to keep intervention at a minimum, and instead through careful study identify the weak points within the Camp of Islam, including the main fissures (sectarian, ethnic, financial) and where possible, to exploit those fissures. This will weaken the Jihad onslaught as nothing else will.
This Administration does not display, in its war-making, the intelligence and even cunning that members of the American government displayed during the Cold War (their names not all household words). Propaganda is non-existent, if by propaganda we mean information designed to lessen the appeal of the enemy’s ideology to others, and also to cause disaffection within the ranks of that enemy. Instead, Muslims are having their hearts and minds won by the constant repetition of praise for Islam, and by a misstating of Islam’s effects. Why have Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan or Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq not been asked to broadcast about Islam, in both English and other languages? Have the defectors from the Army of Islam been allowed to enroll in our Office of War Propaganda, for as much or as little time as they wish? Or is it they who, out of the Administration’s timidity, and its determined unwillingness to recognize the nature and scope of the Muslim threat, who are kept out, not even brought in to at least offer their worldview to high government officials in the Executive Branch, in the Pentagon, or for that matter, before Congress?
Instead of such sensible measures, there is the blind willingness to keep squandering troops. Nearly half of all post-2001 West Point graduates have left the military. There is the blind willingness to keep throwing tanks and helicopters and Strykers and Humvees and planes, in a large, ill-conceived, Baby-Hughie operation, against forces that are all hostile to us, but much more importantly, are hostile to each other. And that latter hostility ought to be recognized and exploited for our ends, instead of allowing our enemies to exploit us for their respective ends.
Here and there some creative diplomacy might actually be necessary, as with getting Turkey to accept an independent Kurdistan with the right American guarantees (in turn dependent on American pressure on the Kurds, which could be considerable).
That idea, because it would require some mental effort, and some cunning, is one that probably appeals less to the Administration than its pursuit of this crazed policy in Tarbaby Iraq. Our rulers are simply not up to it, and they obscurely sense that.
But surely the American government can be a little less timid, a little more ruthless and willing to pressure old but temporary allies of convenience, such as Turkey, or for that matter, new but temporary allies of convenience, such as an independent Kurdistan.
In dozens of postings over the past few years I have explained how complicated this will be. I first noted that the Turkish government must have made known to it that its usefulness during the Cold War has not continued since, and that bases in Bulgaria and elsewhere make Turkey, and those listening-posts and airbases, no longer useful -- if those bases cannot be used in the war that must now be waged. It would require our eliciting from the Kurdish government guarantees about not making territorial demands on Turkey, but at the same time giving the Kurds every encouragement to make such demands on Syria and Iran, where Kurds also live. This can be achieved only because the Kurds have nowhere else to turn for long-term diplomatic and military support.
The Turks will be unhappy with this, but might be made to see that it could work in their favor, and that the moral case of the Kurds in eastern Anatolia is lessened, not increased, by the existence of a Kurdish state to which they could, if they insist, move. It would never be easy to bring all this about. It would require intelligence, tact, cunning -- and these seem to be lacking at all levels of our government.
Posted by Hugh at April 12, 2007 7:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
These are good ideas, but we still can't let them have nukes or keep nukes. We need to prevent Iran getting nukes and get Pakistan to give its nukes up.
Pakistan has missiles, subs, and nukes and is working to combine them. It has 30 billion in debt. Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, etc. have to sell what they make because they lack the industrial infrastructure of the US or old Soviet Union. Even Russia, the US, France, etc. sell a large amount of arms. France sold Pakistan the subyard Pakistan has.
Pakistan then has to sell what it makes out of its subyard. This cycle ends up with Pakistan selling subs with missiles with nuclear warheads from Saudi Arabia to Hugh Chavez.
Posted by: Old Atlantic![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 12, 2007 7:29 AM
"France sold Pakistan the subyard Pakistan has."
...and Pakistan gave France a bunch of "peaceful" Pakistani immigrants....
...real smart people...these French...
at April 12, 2007 8:24 AM
"These are good ideas, but we still can't let them have nukes or keep nukes. We need to prevent Iran getting nukes and get Pakistan to give its nukes up."
-- from a posting above
I have so often mentioned, as the very first thing, the need to prevent major weaponry, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, from being acquired, by any Muslim state or polity, that I didn't think to include it again here. The point has been repeatedly made that among the miserable effects of this Iraq business is that it keeps American troops hostage to conceivable Iranain retaliation in the case of an attack -- from the air, only from the air -- on Iran's nuclear installations, and furthermore, the distraction of Iraq, the political nightmare of Iraq, is clearly limiting the ability of the Administration to focus on the one thing that now matters in that area, and that cannot be delayed: stopping, by damaging very greatly, Iran's nuclear project.
If Bush leaves office with troops still in Iraq, troops whom we so self-confidently describe as being able to "withdraw" smoothly -- how? by what route? how do you bring out 150,000 men, and as they leave, will they bring with them all of their equipment, or will the Iraqi soldiers and police turn on them to seize their weaponry? How safe is Balad? How safe are the skies? What about the route through Shi'a-held territory to Iraq? No problems there? Any other possible routes out? Will any civilians be left behind? What about the 100,000 civilian contractors from the West? Will the American army protect them? Tell them they are on their own? Suggest that they should get out now, while the getting is good?
Everyone bandies about this word "withdrawal" -- some to deplore, and some to applaud -- but has anyone publicly described the fantastically complicated and dangerous task it will be (and Kurdistan may be one exit out along with that southern route, and then the American government will have to see just what kind of an "ally" our Cold War "ally" (for good and sufficient reasons of its own) Tujrkey turns out to be, in easing an American exit, rather than making it more difficult.
Not only does Tarbaby Iraq inhibit action on Iran, but also elsewhere. For it uses up time, energy, of everyone in Washington. Everyone is sick of, but no one can put a stop to, the runaway train which Congress waved through more than four years ago, and now believes itself unable to stop that train by cutting off the fuel of money, and so the halluciniating engineer keeps the train running at full throttle, and apparently, we are told, only Congress can declare a war but is apparently constitutionallly helpless to stop it. This makes no sense.
As to Pakistan: instead of providing more planes, the Americans should be denying Pakistan the means for delivery of what bombs it has, and then working furiously to force the rulers of Pakistan to give up its tiny nuclear arsenal. It could be kept secret from the Pakistani masses, who need never know -- but we would know. How could this be done? In tandem with India. Through threats not merely to end all military and economic aid, but to work toward Pakistan's economic collapse (let's see how much money arrives from those not-terribly-generous Saudis), by putting impossible quotas on its textiles or embargoing goods from Pakistan altogether, and by ending the admission of Pakistanis to the West. This last will be a severe blow to the rulers, the generals and zamindars who decide things, becuase they rely on the West, so manyh of them, as the places where their own children are to be educated, to be medically treated, to find their futures, all in that advanced world of the Infidel West the sources of which advancement those Muslim rulers, in Pakistan and elsewhere, never deeply ponder, even as they wish their children to be able to partake in not Pakistan's future (unless there is a prime-ministership in the offing), but in the future of the Infidel lands. Seal them off from that hope, seal them off from any hope that their children will be able to escape the same fate, of having to endure Pakistan.
That's a beginning.
Posted by: Hugh at April 12, 2007 9:55 AM
Problems with the air only attack on Iran:
What about the problem that Iran will retaliate on our aircraft carriers? Each one has over 5000 men.
What about the problem that we miss secret sites?
Also, invading Iran gives us direct supply to Afghanistan. That changes Pakistan's psychological position. Their sense of our capability will be much higher. They will then realize we don't need them to supply our men in Pakistan. That is a big change.
By drafting 2 million men, we can make North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. take us more seriously. Now they see us as weak.
re Thomas Holsinger on “The Case for Invading Iran”
Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 12, 2007 10:58 AM
That should have been, then we don't need Pakistan to supply our men in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 12, 2007 10:59 AM
And don't forget immigration. It must be cut off, as well as the visa program for students.
It doesn't help the situation when students come here from the East and are fed a vitriolic diet of anti-Americanism.
There must also be some type of control on the foreign influence upon our government through these consulting jobs/PR jobs given out like candy from the Saudis. They have corrupted our own government with anti-semitism and greed for easy riches.
Foreign control over politico-religion in this country is also a disgrace. If people want to build a house of worship, fine. But this constant influx of funds to create communities of anti-American culture and bigotry is just insanity.
Somehow, our government officials must find that integrity to resist petrodollars and instead do what is right for a change!
Our true enemy is within, not in Iraq, and they are increasingly demanding their "due", in broken English! Calling our elected officials 'Islamophobes' and 'extremists', telling them how the court system is supposed to work! How absurd!
Posted by: Kay at April 12, 2007 11:01 AM
Kay, all your points are exactly right on.
Saying stop immigration got me banned from the UK Guardian Comment is Free. They deleted my posts, but I have them below:
Re: Catherine Johnson “Out on the streets, the kids are scared too”
On the first post left by them, you can see its replying to me,
""oldatlantic", why would you pinpoint immigration as the cause of this problem? It has little to do with it."
The problem is knife fighting in the UK.
Catherine Johnson “Out on the streets, the kids are scared too”
at April 12, 2007 11:18 AM
"how do you bring out 150,000 men, and as they leave, will they bring with them all of their equipment,"
.......a disastrous retreat would be airlifted out and all equipment on the ground would be blown up and rendered unusable....
....do not worry, President Pelosi is working out the details...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at April 12, 2007 11:48 AM
There should be a law about who is permitted to own our media. The influence on everyday people is frightening.
Is there one major media outlet without a degree islamic ownership?
at April 12, 2007 11:48 AM
Old Atlantic, I see the Emperor is still wearing the "finest threads" to those people.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 12, 2007 11:59 AM
Robert
On Michael Reagan last night, you seemed to be suggesting that we would be sending the Jihadis the wrong message by pulling out of Iraq. I didn't hear you make the case that a withdrawal is the best strategy, as it would ignite the fissures that exist in the Mid-East, and divert Islamic resources from the mosque building and dawa exercises in the West, to funding their sectarian allies in Iraq, and if it were to spread, then elsewhere.
Also, I thought that Qaddafi had quit his nuclear program because of the lack of success, and that he had more to gain from getting on the good side of the US. As it is, even the State Department hasn't criticized his call for the re-establishment of a Fatimid caliphate.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Hugh wroye:
"It would require intelligence, tact, cunning -- and these seem to be lacking at all levels of our government."Hugh, why do you think it is that the strategy you propose -- which I find entirely reasonable, practical, and wise -- why is it that this strategy not only is not embarked on, but is not even publicly discussed? As far as I know (and my knowledge is not comprehensive) you are the only one espousing these views. How is it that we embarked on a fool's errand, and no voice of reason is heard?
What's up with that?
Posted by: Zeno at April 12, 2007 1:03 PM
"wrote"
Posted by: Zeno at April 12, 2007 1:04 PM
Respectfully Mr. Fitzgerald,
1. All Iraqi's are not devout Muslims and Iraq has democracy which is mob rule. The ability of self rule is quite possible in Iraq as Fouad Ajami noted in his recent finding that the secular Iraq center has gelled and is forming a nationalist nation of Iraq.
This is why the anarchists are trying to still foment a civil war as Iraq is becoming a nation of united will and is flushing out of government the agents who were proxies of the Eurasians trying to get another Saddam installed.
2. Respectfully, the White House is implementing policies you have not seen, heard nor will ever notice which are successful for not only Iraq, but the entire region.
This Administration knows very well the Muslim threat. They though understand that Islam is a proxy war machine utilized by the Russian GRU and FSB as a mechanism to attack and hinder America.
Your idea of fragmenting Islam will have not just a dozen factions, but hundreds of factions like rats jumping from a burning ship. (THIS is what Bill Clinton implemented in his Kosovo War in using jihadist out of Afghanistan which started this entire al Qaeda proxy effort now lead by the Islamocommunists.)
Your measure would create hundreds of such groups with access now to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons who could not be pinned down "in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan", but Indian Mexico, Nicaragua, Guyana, Brazil, Venezuela...all linked by the Cuban backed communist cells bringing waves of attacks on American cities.
History was proven in the Clinton years exactly what happens in imploding Islam. They have learned now and have more direction from the FSB and transportation from the PLA. It will not be 9 11, but what they intended post 9 11 in nuclear bombs in America.
The Kurdish state is a noble cause which should be supported, but America is advocating more of a Swiss Canton which would prove more stablizing than a Kurdish state. America as in President Bush is moving NATO forces into the Muslim Asian regions as a bulwark to the area.
To "put pressure on Turkey" as you advocate is not feasable, as Turkey is a proud Edomite nation doing a great deal of work for America now that Geroge Bush has undone the catastophe of Bill Clinton which closed their bases to America.
Turkey if pressured overtly would fracture enough that what Kosovo was partly about in stopping would happen. The Kurds would hammer Turkey from the east and Christian Greece would hammer Turkey from the west to regain territory.
That would start an out of control scenario into the Balkans of Serbs and Albanians, which means Russia for Serbia and Saudi Arabia for Albanians in the heart of Europe. This is where world wars start and in weeks the spill over would be in the Slavic nations and invoke NATO and Russia in a showdown.
This is why Iraq and Iran surrounded by the buffer zones of oceans and Asian steppes has been deemed with much thought, war college planning and White House insight of a much broader focus in trying to keep America from being sucked into a new world war.
President Bush will indeed strike Iran, because he knows the Chicoms are building 3 nuclear aircraft carriers and Russia with it's arsenal are the real war America is staging for in trying to keep it from happening.
Muslims are only a proxy by these Eurasian forces and there is a reason the war is being fought exactly where it is now as other areas would explode into a world war.
at April 12, 2007 1:10 PM
Where do you start with that?
I just want to throw up my hands. The enormous patience Huge has shown here for so long, going over the same ground again and again, never seeming to tire or loose his temper, finding new and interesting ways to illuminate possible paths to victory, has been impressive. But it does seem as if some "anti-rational" force field has been cast over men's minds, making them impervious to all reason and sense. The errors and nonsense in men's thinking can be patiently and exhaustively pointed out to them, but they either won't hear a word, or will find new follys to entertain.
How we ever rose out of the swamp is a mystery.
Posted by: Zeno at April 12, 2007 2:07 PM
Lame Cherry says:
"2. Respectfully, the White House is implementing policies you have not seen, heard nor will ever notice which are successful for not only Iraq, but the entire region. This Administration knows very well the Muslim threat."
If I recall correctly I think you made a similar assertion a few weeks ago. Would you please elaborate? If the administration sees this threat, as you say, can you please point to one incident, one person, by name or title, or perhaps one policy, to support your claim? if you can't, or if you won't, than, with all due respect, such statements are dangerous and should not be made.
It is as if we can all relax and go back to our busy lives becuase you assure us the administration is "in the know", things are in the works, and we need not worry or discuss these issues anymore.
I am sick and disguted at the level, degree, and duration of ignorance my president has shown to me. I defended him for years. No longer. It took me a whole of 2 months on my own, no consultants, no think tanks at my beck and call, no fleets of CIA analysts, or Yale degrees, to learn enough to know of the threat of Islam and the steps that need be taken. There are no longer any excuses. Hugh's suggestions and proposals are extreme and bold. His theory may may totally incorrect but I don't see or hear a single polictician, newscaster, conservative talk show host, Hollywood celebrity/part time politico saying a damn thing them. Nota. Zip. No debate whatsoever.
So unless you have some proof to back up your claim, I for one, ask you not make such statements.
Posted by: Al E. Baba at April 12, 2007 2:52 PM
ZENO says:
Hugh, why do you think it is that the strategy you propose -- which I find entirely reasonable, practical, and wise -- why is it that this strategy not only is not embarked on, but is not even publicly discussed? As far as I know (and my knowledge is not comprehensive) you are the only one espousing these views.
I don't know who first coined the phrase, but the few bloggers discussing this have named the policy approach Hugh advances as "Seperationism". In this web site:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
Lawrence Auster names a few other serious thinkers who support "Seprationism". Auster does a good job of giving a general description of the term as used by Hugh and others.
Unfortunately, it appears that only online commentators and bloggers are discussing "Seperationism" at their websites. There does not, it appears, to be any other discussions about that, I can find.
at April 12, 2007 3:05 PM
Hugh, it always pains me to hear that Arabs or Moslems (I am unsure which) are incapable of democratic rule because their current leaders force Shiria upon them. What evidence do you have that the majority of Moslems do not do what they do out of fear? Millions of Iraqis voted, once death became only possible, instead of certain. It seems that the protection of our Noble army was all that was required for democracy to blossom.
The violence didn't end? So, as long as there is one evil person, or even one hundred, millions of votes do not count? As long as a single Jihadist is willing to blow himself up, Iraq is a failure?! Her people unworthy and incapable of Liberty?!
All of the prominent Jihadists are saying that the battle is IN IRAQ! They come on TV or the net and say, "the Jihad is in Iraq" but we shouldn't be there?!!
Freedom transplanted?!
Sir, according to the 'Declaration of Independence' Liberty is an inalienable right endowed by our Creator. Freedom is not something which a human being can lack or must be taught. Iraqis/Arabs/Molsems may not have been able to live free, yet. Destroying the enemies of Human Liberty, like the Royal Navy eradicating Human Slavery, is always a worthwhile cause, however difficult or painful.
Posted by: Marshall at April 12, 2007 3:14 PM
"Sir, according to the 'Declaration of Independence' Liberty is an inalienable right endowed by our Creator. Freedom is not something which a human being can lack or must be taught. Iraqis/Arabs/Molsems may not have been able to live free, yet. Destroying the enemies of Human Liberty, like the Royal Navy eradicating Human Slavery, is always a worthwhile cause, however difficult or painful."
-- from a posting above
Suh, ah am puffickly acquainted with the Declaration of Independence, written by one of mah fine ancestors, Mr. Thomas Jefferson, and ah don't think that Muslims think they have any right to these here "inalienable rights" that you write of, referring to that fine Virginia gentleman and scholar Mr. Thomas Jefferson.
But enough of Foghorn Leghorn. You either are wilfully ignoring, or have not read, the repeated discussions here about Islam and the view that Islam inculcates of political legitimacy.
One more time: political legitimacy in the advanced democracies of the West developed out of the proposition that in a state of nature men agreed to form a government that would, in turn, be given a monopoly on violence (as in the criminal law, or war-making) and that this was done in order to protect life (Hobbes) and life and property (Locke) and so on. This is all being so simplified as to be worthy of a Hi-Marx outline sold to students mugging up the mateial for a 9th-grade examination, but you get the idea. Political legitimacy rests that is with the expressed will of the People.
In Islam, the people, mere mortals, are the slaves of Allah. They submit to his will, or even to his whim. They are essentially unimportant save as his slaves. And what is the ideal Muslim state? It is a state run of, by, and for Muslims, run according to what is commanded and what prohibited by the Shari'a or Holy Law of Islam. Democracy in the Western sense, the very idea of "freedom" in the Western sense, do not exist, never have existed, in Islam. See Bernard Lewis, "The Political Language of Islam."
You can keep pretending to yourself that everyone the wide world over is just like everyone else, and all peoples and cultures are the same, and that "sameness" ends up somehow in the American view as more or less making everyone remarkably like....like Americans.
It's naive. It's dangerous. It's the Bush-Rice-Karen Hughes view of the world. And it is utter nonsense.
at April 12, 2007 3:30 PM
All excellent points, Hugh. (A few weeks ago -- or has it been a month now? there was an article about how to defeat Islam -- one of the best I've read -- but -- I didn't save it -- I'll have to look through the archives...)
Anyway, the only "problem" -- I just don't see any of these points happening. If troops are going to be withdrawn from Iraq, it'll be through the Democrats -- and in the worst possible way imaginable (that is, like a rout -- with jihadists whoopin' and hollerin' proclaiming victory).
I don't see the Kurds getting an independent state. I don't see Pakistan being pressured to give up its nukes (in fact, today India just tested a missile capable of carrying nukes into China and into the Middle East -- I see a nuke arms race),
And, immigration? Well, I just see more and more floods of jihadists into North America. The politicians, the media people, the immigration lawyers, the societies to advance islam, the universities, the churches/synagogues, etc., etc. -- all of these institutions have become conduits for the spread and dissemination of Islam. We are doing this -- ignorance, blindness, sheer stupidity (along with the cupidity of those more than willing to get Saudi bucks) -- by the time most people wake up, it'll probably be very, very late in the game.
As Mark Steyn writes, soon we'll be living on "a planet on which much of the map is re-primitivized" (America Alone, p. xiii).
at April 12, 2007 3:38 PM
"(that is, like a rout -- with jihadists whoopin' and hollerin' proclaiming victory)."
....they began doing this when the Dhimmicrats took control of the House and the Senate....They proudly praised the dhimmicrat voters for voting "wisely"....
....Now Pelosi and other dhimmicrats are falling over one another going on whirlwind tours to see as many of the terrorist leaders as they can....
....making promises and secret deals...no doubt...
at April 12, 2007 3:43 PM
Respectfully Lame Cherry and Marshall
I know that my example is not very impressive, but I have lived in an oppressive society, with brainwashing ad nauseam, and trough the effects of external pressure and growing internal fissures. It is my impression, experience and firm belief that internal fissure is the most effective, if not the only, way to dismantle a totalitarian system (especially decades old or older). It is called brainwashing exactly because human values are replaced by whatever the braiwash propagates. It does not render people uncapable of democracy or freedom or any other normal human expression, it simply pushes those out to the perifery of ones concience and makes them unwilling to pursue normal behaviour under external pressure. It is deeply human to want to be a maker of your own destiny, so unless freedom is desired FIRST, no extenal liberation matters. When people don't want freedom, or are afraid of it because of a failing social system, they willingly exchange it for safety and vote for NSDAP and Adolf Hitler. On the other hand if the system failure is internal, people turn to democracy, because they want to live like Westerners, with the quality of life, levels of GNP etc.
In any case all trough history any government of any country has had confidential intelligence data. In most political actions there are steps and objectives that can not be openly declared. However it is critical for any government to announce a believable and defendable platform, which will convince the citizens to support govt. policies. Secret programs, back office awareness, pursuit of clandestine objectives are inevitably harmfull (even if the government is made up of hones, honorable men) simply because their acceptance by the public lives the society to the mercy of the first totalitarian politician wich will plunge the country in the abyss of tyrany.
Believe me the way out of this abyss too long and too painfull to be justified by anything.
Posted by: Excommie at April 12, 2007 4:09 PM
Marshall wrote:
"It seems that the protection of our Noble army was all that was required for democracy to blossom."
Really? Democracy has blossomed in Iraq?
Also, the Declaration of Independence does not apply to the Iraqis. They have not even begun to earn their independence or their freedom. If it is an inalienable right endowed by our creator, let them ask Allah for help. It does not say that the US is responsible to deliver freedom to every Tom, Dick and Harry of the world, especially when an unknown number of Toms, Dicks and Harrys will gladly return the favor with an insult or much, much worse.
The democracy, that we in the West understand, cannot be integrated into an Islamic society, or vice versa, not as Islam currently exists. It is nothing more than the same old weepy moral quandary, "it is wrong to abandon them", to suggest otherwise. The bottom line is war and morality do not mix. The US is currently mired in this absurd juxtapositional mindset. It is wasteful to the US. Wasteful in military and economic resources. It is naive to believe that we can continue to invest in this fool's errand, an errand with no conceivable end in sight.
This is to be a very long war, the war against Islam as it is applied today. Establishing the unattainable, utopian Iraqi freedom will not allay the threat that Islam poses. Thinking like that is simply myopic. There is so much to do and so little time. Temporarily policing a secterian war in Iraq, one between the Sunni and the Shia that is as old, and much, much older than the Declaration of Independence itself, with the absolute reality that it is merely a temporary fix, is not high on the much-needed "to do list". Not for the sane, anyway.
at April 12, 2007 5:01 PM
There was a comment by Hugh (in response to a Charles Krauthammer article) about Iraq/democracy, etc. I think Hugh's comments are worth re-reading (but this isn't the article I was looking for..) See:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000893.php
at April 12, 2007 5:23 PM
Wow, Hugh, the Sir was meant to be respectful. It was apparently inappropriate here.
Posted by: Marshall at April 12, 2007 5:59 PM
Marshall, I think Hugh's response was meant to be taken as facetious -- not all that seriously...I think it's because Hugh feels strongly that "Democracy in Iraq" would simply strengthen the House of Islam (not weaken it)...I suppose, though, that Hugh can speak for himself. (I do think the question about "democracy" and Iraq is an important debate).
Posted by: J.S. at April 12, 2007 6:17 PM
Hugh said
[P]olitical legitimacy in the advanced democracies of the West developed out of the proposition that in a state of nature men agreed to form a government that would, in turn, be given a monopoly on violence (as in the criminal law, or war-making) and that this was done in order to protect life (Hobbes) and life and property (Locke) and so on. This is all being so simplified as to be worthy of a Hi-Marx outline sold to students mugging up the mateial for a 9th-grade examination, but you get the idea.
As you said, there is no way to adequately convey the long and difficult process that was required for the West to develop Western values. There are so many persons (John Stuart Mills, Thomas Paine, de Tocqueville, Rousseau, Spinoza, Machiavelli, Kant, Rawls) putting so much effort into developing those values and ideas. Most of us in the West are unaware of our own history, and of that process. We assume that this is the way it always was, that freedom and democracy (and habeas corpus, freedom to change one's religious affiliation, freedom to criticize the government, and so on) always existed in the aether like air and water. We assume that the long and difficult path we have taken is the only possible path to take, and that every person on the planet must be taking the same path. If Muslims don't have democracy and freedom, well then they don't have it YET. They must be "behind" us, they must be less-advanced versions of ourselves, trying hard to catch up as they follow our One True Path.
We assume that our values and goals are the only possible values and goals. If the Muslims claim to have different values and goals ("You love Pepsi, we love death"), then someone must be forcing them to say these "wrong" things that they couldn't possibly truly believe. We assume if we could just figure out who is making them say these "wrong" things, and get rid of those 1 or 2 or 10 extremists, then the vast majority of Muslims, who must be just like us, will join us in peace and democracy and freedom.
We assume all these things, and they are all false. And in the case of Iraq, they become very dangerous false assumptions.
Posted by: special_guest at April 12, 2007 6:27 PM
J.S. wrote:
"I think it's because Hugh feels strongly that "Democracy in Iraq" would simply strengthen the House of Islam" (not weaken it)...
It is doubtful that is what he meant. What he meant is that democracy, as the West knows, can not and should not be force-fed to Iraq. What he also meant is that the belief system of Islam, historically and as applied to date cannot possibly achieve the version of democracy we know. Islam simply isn't compatible.
Democracies were shaped by intuitive minds, independent thinkers..things strongly discouraged in Islam. Democracies at their root, when operating effectively, is rule derived from the will of the masses, whereas in Islam, the masses are irrelevent with the exception that they are required to collectively submit to the One. Apples and oranges.
Weakening the camp of Islam is what Hugh means, for it is the camp of Islam that poses the threat to our collective wstern principles. He for one, understands that the West is and has been at war with the socio-political tool of Islam for a long time. In a war one should seek to weaken one's enemy at all costs, taking steps to achieve that goal with maximum efficiency. Exploiting the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia, by way of simply getting the hell out of the way in Iraq, does just that.
Concern for the enemy's well-being, one that has done nothing to warrant the sacrifice that has been dedicated to them, with a hope that they will see the errors of their ways and make amends in the future, just doesn't enter into the equation, nor should it.
Posted by: awake at April 12, 2007 7:23 PM
"Nearly half of all post-2001 West Point graduates have left the military."
Hugh, I believe the number you're talking about is that in 2005 38% of West Point graduates left after their 5-year commitment. Anyone who graduated post-2001 has not yet met their required commitment.
Posted by: Don Miguel at April 12, 2007 8:31 PM
"'Nearly half of all post-2001 West Point graduates have left the military.' [from the article above]
Hugh, I believe the number you're talking about is that in 2005 38% of West Point graduates left after their 5-year commitment. Anyone who graduated post-2001 has not yet met their required commitment." [comment by a poster above]
You are partly right. I should have written that "nearly half of the the Class of 2001 at West Point, the class whose members, having served their mandatory five years after graduating in June 2001, could begin in the summer of 2006 to stay in the military or leave, chose to leave."
Why did I write "close to half" when you gave a figure of 38%? Because of the following excerpt in a story (April 11, 2007) by Bryan Bender in The Boston Globe:
"WASHINGTON -- Recent graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point are choosing to leave active duty at the highest rate in more than three decades, a sign to many military specialists that repeated tours in Iraq are prematurely driving out some of the Army's top young officers.
According to statistics compiled by West Point, of the 903 Army officers commissioned upon graduation in 2001, nearly 46 percent left the service last year -- 35 percent at the conclusion of their five years of required service, and another 11 percent over the next six months. And more than 54 percent of the 935 graduates in the class of 2000 had left active duty by this January, the statistics show."
One would like to know how many have left active duty in the last three months, in West Point classes for both 2000 and 2001. For that matter, one would like to know the figures compiled by West Point on retention rates in the military of those who graduated in 1997, 1998, 1999 as well.
And this summer, the Class of 2002, having fulfilled its five years of mandatory service, will have a choice -- a choice that will reflect their own views on the wisdom of that costly, in every sense, venture in Iraq.
Posted by: Hugh at April 12, 2007 10:29 PM
Marshall and J.S.,
I think the 'Suh' response was in reference to the eradication of slavery point.
In order to free slaves, they must be willing to be free, which is the point. They are not.
Muslims, as those in submission to Allah, are looking to stay slaves.
You cannot just read the Declaration of Independence in a vacuum. You must remember that the basis of the constitution was the example of the self-governed colonies, like the Mayflower Covenant.
These people were willing to die for their insistence on democracy, on refusing to acknowledge any man as better in the eyes of God than the next. This concept came from their Christian belief system, which emphasizes freedom of choice, free will, faith. Islam precludes such freedoms.
Also, freedom is not free. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said this:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
A radical concept that we must not forget.
Posted by: Kay at April 12, 2007 11:19 PM
"Wow, Hugh, the Sir was meant to be respectful. It was apparently inappropriate here."
-- from a posting above
No, no. You misunderstand. I was just having fun with the Foghorn Leghorn thing. I wasn't making fun of your "Sir" -- it merely prompted me to go off on a brief frolic and detour of my own, before coming back to the matter at hand. And that was all.
Posted by: Hugh at April 13, 2007 12:24 AM
Awake,
Hugh wrote (in the link I provided to a previous comment regarding "democracy" in Iraq) "'Democracy' in the Islamic world is not a desideratum; de-islamification is what the non-Muslim world must work towards. 'Democracy' is likely to lead to more Islam, not less."
(One needs only to think of Algeria in the 90s -- election of Islamists led to a civil war; what's happening in Turkey -- the secularists are losing out to the Islamists; what could happen in Egypt -- the Muslim Brotherhood would win even more seats; to see that "democracy" does not necessarily lead to a Civil Rights orientation or "Freedom and Equality" for everyone (instead, in the world of Islam, it leads to a re-affirmation of Islamic "principles" -- ie, Sharia law, etc...all of which, I'm sure you know.)
I guess the point is two-fold -- what should the American Administration be doing? Is it correct in promoting "democracy"? And the other point (as you've noted) is that "democracy" (as we in the West understand the term) cannot be "force fed" to an unwilling public nor can "western values" be instantly transplanted.
Anyway, I read an article by Charles Krauthammer today about Iraq ("Look closely. There's progress in Iraq"). I think the article (in what is left unsaid) acts as a confirmation of Hugh's "take" on the situation. If one compares Krauthammer's article today, with the one linked to above -- it's distressing. The optimism is largely gone. And Krauthammer's "best hope" seems to lie in stopping the "ethnic cleansing" going on (as if this were an attainable goal or could be achieved by the U.S., considered by most Iraqis as the "great Satan" -- yeah, the Great Satan will stop the carnage, sure, tell me another one.) I just don't see "democracy" springing up in Iraq. (But I'm not a big fan of the Democratic Party or their desire to flee the scene either.)
at April 13, 2007 9:59 AM
J.S.,
I read Hugh's linked archived comments, strikingly similar to yesterday's. I also read Krauthammer's article today. Any success that the current troop increase is experiencing is being harshly suppressed by the MSM, an absolute "war-crime" in itself.
McCain visited Iraq recently to prove that the increase was working, a piece that the MSM summized as pro-war propoganda, with a smirk by the disingenuine liberal lapdog, Brian Williams, who went out of his way to state that McCain was accompanied by a large military chaperone. It is still a war-zone, and he is a presidential candidate, but the smug MSM, from the comfort of their TV studios have already judged and declared sentence on the war in Iraq. They are a disgraceful lot, but they will compel the correct course of action, even if they have no idea as to why they it truly is correct.
The heart of the problem with Iraq, as Hugh has pointed out ad nauseum, is that the Islamic sects will continue to in-fight, whether or not the US has a presence there. All we can essentially do is temporarily, and wastefully aid one sect against another and do our best to insure which side we want to come out on top. This however is not a realistic military objective. The ranks and files of the Islamists are re-filled much quicker than we can take them out. The clear distiction between friend and foe is also absent. One thing is for damn sure....no democracy will result, not one that we in the West know anyway.
Islam is still Islam and until that changes, nothing changes. US Withdrawal will certainly release the reins of control and encourage in-fighting. We should take that opportunity, an opportunity to re-group and re-think, whilst the Islamists' attention is elsewhere, what our next move should be. The war against Islam is being fought on many different fronts. Unless the US is willing to liberally kill without conscience in the region, there really is no mission to accomplish there. If the Islamists decide to don uniforms and form ranks, then maybe we can re-evaluate an objective, but alas, those days appear to be long gone.
Posted by: awake at April 13, 2007 1:03 PM
"One would like to know how many have left active duty in the last three months, in West Point classes for both 2000 and 2001."
Hugh, I'd actually rather know the numbers in terms of the entire officer corps. West Point graduates make up a relatively small percentage of all officers. In any case, the reasons officers leave after one tour would be of great interest.
at April 13, 2007 2:02 PM
Awake,
I totally agree with your assessment. (I suppose, before someone gets the wrong idea -- again, as Hugh has written over and over again -- it's not so much that Islam and democracy are forever and forever opposed, but that democracy needs to be fostered s-l-o-w-l-y (the Islamists have got to be held off -- the secularists given breathing room -- maybe then headway can be made).
There was an article "Can there be an Islamic Democracy?" by David Bukay (Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2007) in which Bukay notes the differences between casting a vote vs *real* democracy. Thus, Bukay writes: "Larry Diamond, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, and Leonardo Morlino, a specialist in comparative politics at the University of Florence, ascribe seven features to any democracy: [1] individual freedoms and civil liberties; [2] rule of the law; [3] sovereignty resting upon the people; [4] equality of all citizens before the law; [5] vertical and horizontal accountability for government officials; [6] transparency of the ruling systems to the demands of the citizens; [7]and equality of opportunity for citizens. This approach is important, since it emphasizes civil liberties, human rights and freedoms, instead of over-reliance on elections and the formal institutions of the state."
Bukay goes on to argue that the cultures found in the Middle East and the religion of Islam act as hindrances to the establishment of true, flourishing democracies. I'm reminded of a statement from Ian Bremmer (in "J-Curve", p 60-61), in which Bremmer spoke of Iraq's extensive patronage networks. During Saddam's era, "personal trust and loyalty, more than respect for national institutions or law, became the political coin of the realm. The men who made Iraqi history, then and since, have treated political power as a weapon to be wielded against personal enemies and as a source of personal profit." Comparing this corrupt, patronage network with the 7 attributes of a democracy -- well, there's quite a schism. (It's both Iraq's culture and religion -- the 2 aspects that so many in the West refuse to acknowledge -- which are the stumbling blocks.)
And I don't see any "quick fix" in the future.
Posted by: J.S. at April 13, 2007 4:31 PM
"I'd actually rather know the numbers in terms of the entire officer corps. West Point graduates make up a relatively small percentage of all officers."
-- from a posting above
So would I. I've tried every which way to find out on the web, but without success. Do you know of any place that this kind of information can be obtained? Would the Pentagon dare to release it?
Posted by: Hugh at April 13, 2007 4:33 PM
Here's a great sum up of the situation:
Can Democracy Be Imposed? Not in Muslim countries.
by Alamgir Hussain
In the post-9/11 era, the Bush administration's new project of spreading freedom and democracy in the dictators-ruled countries became one of the most discussed and closely followed topics in the media and at all levels of the society. As the world gets increasing plagued by violence, unleashed by the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist groups, a way to turn the tide of violence towards peace was indeed a desirable idea to the peace and freedom-loving people in the world. Although many doubted the means Bush administration undertook to spread democracy around the world, yet there was hardly any disagreement to the fact that freedom and democracy can usher in peace and prosperity. Believing in this fundamental premise, many in the US and around the world supported the Bush administration's aggressive policy of instituting democracy by overthrowing the authoritarian Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the adventure of spreading democracy itself did not succeed in those two countries until now. All indications suggest that it is neither going to be successful in the end. And what we witness today is that the Bush administration's policy of spreading democracy in the hope making those countries a more hopeful and peaceful place has failed as things stand now. Not only that, these countries have, instead, become massive breeding grounds for the terrorists and the world is at its worst, as far as the threats from such violent groups are concerned.
As it appears now, the skeptics of the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy, who had argued that democracy cannot be exported or imposed on a people from outside, might have been right. They have argued that freedom and democracy have to evolve from within. So we can safely say that these skeptics were right and the Bush administration's war architects were utterly wrong. Upfront, I want to assert that both the skeptics of Bush formula as well as its supporters are only partially right and partially wrong.
Can democracy be imposed from without? It is a stale analysis to go into given that innumerable commentaries have been written on this topic in the last few years. I will try to be brief. If we look back into the 1930s and 40s, we see clearly that the world's most incorrigible dictators of that era? the imperialists dictators of Japan, the brutal expansionist Nazis of Germany and the deadly fascists of Italy? have been replaced by the fine democratic governments imposed by direct or indirect intervention of the allied forces in the post-WW II period.
The skeptics may argue that the rule of the game has changed now and it does not work anymore. Afghanistan and Iraq are the most obvious examples in their favor. They probably would appear correct. Let us consider the intervention in mainly Christian Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s. After the downfall of the dictatorial communism, these regions ran into a disastrous civil war as a result of religio-ethnic fighting between the minority Muslims and the majority Christians. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, intervention quickly brought the fighting and violence under control. Since then, reconciliation, reconstruction and democratic processes have made steady progress. All indications suggest that secular democracy and peace will continue to strengthen and be lasting. However, there is one concern. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise amongst the Muslim populace and the al-Qaeda and other like-minded Islamist groups are spreading their tentacles to that region. Hence, the future of a lasting peace and democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina will solely depend on how the Muslims behave in the coming years and decades?
Similarly, the United States' forced ouster of Charles Taylor of Liberia and Aristride of Haiti, both Christian countries have so far held in good stead. More pressing interventions in Muslim countries, namely in Somalia and Afghanistan, have miserably failed during the same period. Instead of bringing democracy and peace, interventions in these countries have made the world a much more dangerous place by inspiring Muslims at far corners of the world to form new terrorist groups and strengthening the already existing ones. On the other hand, there are no indications that interventions in Christian countries, namely Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, have inspired any Christian group in far places, say in Nigeria, Philippines, Australia, USA, Canada or South America, to create terrorist groups and to unleash violence of any sort.
Those who argue that democracy and rule of law cannot be imposed by outside interventions are obviously wrong if considered the interventions in Japan, Italy and Germany in post-WW II era. All indications from the more recent but unfinished interventions in the Balkan, in Liberia and Haiti also prove them wrong. However they are right, while the Bush administration and their cheer-leaders are wrong, when considered the intervention in Somalia in 1993 and more recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In order to understand this intriguing disparity in success of outside interventions in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, one must grasp the basic understanding of the fundamental precepts of Islam, which is the common ideological denominator that binds them together. Islamic scholars over the centuries have divided the world into two domains. The first being the Dar-ul-Islam (house of peace), which constitute the domains dominated and ruled by the Muslims according to the Islamic laws. The other is the Dar al-Harb (house of war), which is dominated and ruled by the non-Muslims and Muslims must wage a ceaseless war (so it called 'house of war') against it in order to bring it into the domain of Dar al-Islam, thereby fulfilling the wishes of the almighty creator.
Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) is a towering Islamic thinker, historian and philosopher. According to famous contemporary Islamic thinker Prof. Tariq Ramadan, whom Time Magazine voted to be one of the world's 100 greatest thinkers and scientists in 2004, considers Ibn Khaldun as giant Muslim contributor to the Greek rationalism, philosophy and science that were later transmitted to the Europeans prior to the advent of Enlightenment in Europe [Roots of Rationality, Guardian 22 Sept, 2006].
In affirming this principle of Islam, Ibn Khaldun wrote of the Christians in his greatest treatise, 'The Muqaddimah': "We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book [Muqaddimah] with discussion of their [Christian] dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known. All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Koran. To discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is for them to choose between conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death." [For more affirmation, see Koran: 9:29]
In affirmation of the Koranic edict of fighting the infidels (non-Muslims) until religion is Allah's (Islam) alone [Koran 8:39], he furthered wrote of the Dar-ul-Harb in 'The Muqaddimah' : "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense." [Quoted in State and Governance in Medieval Islam, Ann Lambton (1981), Oxford University Press, New York, p201]
In today's violence and terrorism stricken world, those involved in the desperate search for peace, should understand the basic Islamic principles and thoughts. Dar al-Islam (Islamic world), with whatsoever there-in, is the perfect abode of peace and prosperity, which is achievable only by the institution of the divine laws of the only true God, Allah. Islam is the complete and perfect code of life for governing perfectly all aspects of human life: social, moral, spiritual, religious, political, economic and everything else. Extra-Islamic doctrines, such as democracy, are inferior to the divine Islamic codes of governance. Outside interventions and democracy in Islamic countries are, thus, not necessary; neither do Muslims accept it.
On the other hand, Dar al-Harb, which does not hold such perfect code of governance, has scope of improvement. Hence, the imposition of democracy and freedom were quickly accepted in countries like Japan, Germany and Italy etc. The international policy-makers who might be at a fix over their repeated failures to achieve those goals in Muslim countries which are easily achievable elsewhere, must understand these fundamental distinctions between Islamic and the non-Islamic countries.
BOYCOTT ALL TRAVEL & PRODUCTS FROM MUSLIM COUNTRIES & COMPANIES WITH MAJORITY STOCK OWNED BY
MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE: A.O.L., CITIBANK, FAIRMONT HOTELS, ECT.
e-mail your Congressional Representatives to implement a 4 year phase-out of use of foreign oil!Mandate 60 MPG CARS/SUVs
If GM, Ford & Damiler/Chrysler would build hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles (use composite fiber bodies for lighter weight-incredible strength) and put ethanol pumps at every dealership they would have increasing business and market share.The time has come to mandate phasing in all new car and trucks sold in the U.S.A. be hybrid or alternative energy vehicles and reach 60 M.P.G., just like Honda and Toyota are doing now! There should be a 4 year phase in with 25% the first year, 50% ths 2nd year 75% the 3rd year, and 100% the 4th year. Imagine how that would cut the U.S. Oil imports improve U.S. car production and sales, and clean up the environment! If Brazil a 3rd world country can run their vehicles on Ethanol from sugarcane & it's waste, why don't we create a government crashplan to do the same along with hydrogen production and mandate both be available at the gas stations of the U.S.A.? The reason it won't even be looked at in Congress or Vetoed by President Bush is that they owe large political favors to their Democratic and Republican Big Auto & Big Oil Business executive political contributors and they have never made as large a profit as they have under their front-people in Congress and the Whitehouse & Staff! (The Big Auto management are part of the interlocking boards and social network with Big Oil's people, all a bunch of happy pigs at the money-trough and have squeezed us by monopoly at the gas pumps and car showrooms!)
The solution to bring back U.S.A. & world prosperity with real democratic representation is 5 Constitutional Amendments:
The only way to get politicians who will represent the average working and middle class citizen is to pass 5 U.S. Constitutional Amendments:
#1. Balanced Trade: every country who sells in the U.S. should buy equal amount of products from the U.S.A.
#2. Public Financing of All Political Elections:(Federal,State, County,City or Township) with no personal or outside contributions, (see www.just6.org )
#3 National Refererendum Vote: (for Federal, State, County, City, & Township)4 times a year where citizens can over ride The President, Congress, & The Supreme Court and any politician with a 2/3 majority!
#4 Environmental & Worker's Human Rights Amendment-Enforce all worker rights in a worldwide trading partner to unionize, have
health and safety standards, human rights standards, and enforce all world standards for environmental manufacturing and disposal of hazardous materials with loss of trade for non-compliance!
#5. No Child Or Adult shall be entitled to citizenship, or ownership of business, property, or financial assets until proven to be a legal resident alien or U.S. citizen or by being the child of at least one legal U.S. citizen or Legal Resident Alien.
at April 13, 2007 10:59 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)