| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Would it be immoral for Americans to leave Iraq, or to allow it to dissolve? Some have said so. But as to the question of morality, I don't even understand the question. The Kurds resent the Arabs for good reason. Why should they not try to make a move for independence, and if by helping them the American government can weaken Syria and Iran, and have a semi-reliable ally in what was northern Iraq, why not? What is immoral about that?
And as to the sectarian divisions, they date back a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The depth and duration of that division, in other words, owes nothing to us. It is the Americans who have tried, at great human and economic cost, to make the Iraqis less tribal, less selfish, more imbued with a sense of a nation -- and a nation that is not merely a place to be controlled by their sect or tribe or family. The Americans have tried to encourage entrepreneurial activity instead of reliance, as in so many other Muslim states, on either oil money or foreign aid from Infidels, and to encourage the adoption of a Constitution that would actually move away from the Shari'a.
It has all failed. And that is despite the enormous efforts of American soldiers, who were never taught about Islam, and yet persevered, and were puzzled when the Muslims of Iraq did not behave, as those soldiers expected them to, as a grateful "Iraqi people," but rather as a collection -- with a handful of exceptions -- of grasping, whining, greedy, meretricious people, eager to have the Americans do everything for them, eager to have them lavish them with aid money (thrown around, by the billions, like confetti), and distinctly indifferent to American losses when not taking outright pleasure in such losses, yet always willing to blame the Americans for everything.
Does a Sunni bomb go off killing Shi'a? The Shi'a crowds gather, and tell reporters that they blame the Americans. The Sunnis are kidnapped by Shi'a militia, and the Sunnis rant against the Americans. And now 98% of the Sunni Arabs say that all attacks on Americans are justified and that they personally approve of them, and 75% of the Shi'a say the same thing. Only the Kurds express, by a large majority, lack of approval for such attacks.
What is the conceivable offense to morality in no longer sending Americans to fight and die for people who cannot overcome Islam, who will in large -- and ever-increasing -- numbers, take delight in the deaths of Americans? And does anyone, does even Bush, still think that Iraq could somehow become a Light Unto the Muslim Nations? Karen Hughes, Bush’s loyal and equally unintelligent aide, is the one who is most directly involved with "reaching out to Muslims." That is the extent of our propaganda effort, an effort that should be made not to win jihadists over, but to fill them with confusion and to demoralize them, and make at least some of them begin to see that their political, economic, and social failures are a direct result of what Islam inculcates -- not only the specific doctrines, but the habit of mental submission that it demands.
It is immoral for Bush and others to persist obstinately in a course that makes no sense. Like the general in "The Charge of the Light Brigade," or like the madly complacent generals who sent people to their death in the trenches in World War I, these people are not thinking straight. Others -- the soldiers and Marines of the regular army, and of the Reserves and National Guard -- at least had every right to expect that they would not be sent to Iraq except in case of absolute national emergency. Yet the war in Iraq is most definitely not a case of "national emergency" but of willful ignorance of Islam, lack of imagination, lack of wit, lack of knowledge about Iraq, at the very top. And then there is always that claque of loyalists, the assorted kagans and kristols or, for that matter, that speaking-truth-to-power admirer of Edward Said, the minor polemicist Christopher Hitchens, who only yesterday began to find out a little about Islam. He's a dab hand at running with whatever little knowledge he acquires, tout en faisant son petit Orwell.
There is nothing "machiavellian" or "immoral" about refusing to continue to keep various groups of Muslims from one another's throats. Who knows? Maybe they'll all make peace. Let's say that is the outcome. I could live with that. I could also live with the other. It is theirs to make or mar. We got rid of a murderous monster. That murderous monster, it turns out, was about what Iraq appeared to need, if the only conceivable good is an absence of the kind of strife that became inevitable, sooner or later, once the regime of Saddam Hussein was removed.
Perhaps some think the regime of Saddam Hussein was moral, and that therefore it was immoral to end it, but Christopher Hitchens is not among them. He thinks the removal of Saddam Husseini was justified and desirable. Unfortunately, he also seems to think it is Americans who should pay, and keep paying, the price for that removal -- instead of those whose belief-system makes them naturally unwilling to compromise, that makes them susceptible to crazed beliefs and conspiracy theories (the Sunni Arabs, for example, really allow themselves to believe that they constitute 42% of the Iraqi population, and they really believe that they have a right to that amount of power, or even more, and certainly they will never acquiesce in the Shi'a rule over Iraq).
Bush and his loyalists refuse to identify the enemy properly -- which consists of all those who think they have a duty to spread Islam through Jihad, until the goal that Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, is achieved, and the world is made safe for Islam because all obstacles to its spread, and imposition, have been removed, so that "Islam dominates and is not to be dominated."
The Bush Amdinistration prates about a "war on terror" and tells us that this war "can be won" but it will take time. Cheney says "a generation." Blair speaks of "twenty, even thirty years." This shows their wilful misunderstanding.
This "war" has no end. Even to think in terms of a war with an "end" shows that you have not thought through the problem of Islam. Even if Muslims are weakened, or appear to have let the doctrine of Jihad fall into desuetude, because they may appear, and may in fact be, too weak to act on it (essentially, from about 1800 to 1960, that was the case, and that was the period when some Muslims, recognizing the weakness of the Islamic world, actually tried to think of ways to "reform" it but aside from visiting Europe and noting the need to rival it in military technology, nothing every came of that "reformist" impulse, tiny and ineffectual as it was).
This war has no end, because Islam cannot everywhere be stamped out -- have Nazis, or neo-Nazis, ceased to exist? Of course not, nor have devout Communists eager for levelling by the state, nor have Fascists, nor have all kinds of human impulses that, if translated into the political sphere, are mortal enemies of civilization and intelligent freedom. But they have been held in check, their numbers limited.
The task of the non-Muslim world is to weaken the Camp of Islam, and the appeal of Islam to the psychically and economically marginal in the West, in the most effective way, and at the lowest cost. Ordinarily that can be done by exploiting the natural pre-existing divisions within Islam. Iraq, for example, offers two of the three main divisions.
The first is the sectarian (Shi'a and Sunni), and sufficiently balanced in power that neither side could easily defeat the other, despite the large Shi'a advantage in population, for the Sunnis are much more ruthless, aggressive, and determined, and have deep-pocketed allies in Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait (the Al-Sabah family doesn't want a Shi'a threat from Iran-cum-Iraq to replace what it faced with Saddam Hussein, especially since there are many Shi'a in Kuwait, who may now be regarded as a potential fifth column).
The second is the ethnic: the justified desire of the Kurds to be independent of the Arabs, who have persecuted them, and murdered them, and taken over their lands, and appropriated the oil wealth under those lands (which lands, in fact, were in reality those of the Assyrian Christians who in fact were, in the post-World War I settlement, dispossessed by some of those Kurds moving south, as in turn, the Kurds were later dispossessed --as in Kirkuk -- by the government-sponsored resettlement of Arabs moving north).
The third, not present within Iraq but certainly present among the Muslim states: is economic: the resentment of poor Arabs and Muslims over the unmerited vast wealth of the rich Arabs and Muslims, a resentment that has not been exploited because, idiotically, the Western world has, instead of drawing attention to the grand theft of "Muslim" resources by a handful of rulers and states, and their refusal to share the wealth not only with many of the people in those states, but also with other Muslims, thus showing not the slightest interest in supporting fellow members of the umma (although payments to other Muslims for spreading Islam in the West, or to engage in acts of terrorism against Israel or India or other Infidel states -- well, that can and is supported by rich Arabs).
We need first to recognize, and then to exploit, these fissures. I haven't begun to explain the kind of propaganda that would help, but most of it should be obvious.
But it is not obvious to the likes of Karen Hughes. It is not obvious to the likes of Cheney's daughter, the one involved in bringing "democracy" to Iraq (what makes her an expert? what allowed her to be put in charge of such matters?). And it certainly isn't obvious to Condoleeza Rice, with a most limited view of things, whose claim to fame is that she was a good -- i.e., obedient -- graduate student in some branch of Kremlinology, but lacks the learning, the world experience, and the imagination to push her even more limited boss into something like a comprehension of what Islam is all about, and how it makes best sense to constrain and weaken it.
There are at least three separate Sunni insurgent groups: the Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia who want to fight the Americans, and the Shi'a for being "Rafidite dogs" or the worst kind of Infidels; ; the tribes in Anbar Province who have been offended by Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and are fighting with them and may, mistakenly, be thought of therefore as American allies; the Sunni Arabs in Iraq who refuse to acquiesce in their loss of power to the Shi'a, and to want to fight the Americans, seen as having been responsible for that loss of power, and the Shi'a, but do not quite see the Shi'a as those "Rafidite dogs" that the members of Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia do.
There are at least three Shi'a groups: the Shi'a who are genuinely secular, westernized nice. This nearly-infinitesimal group, the very group that presented itself to the Bush Administration as representative of Iraq, has people who are secular, some of whom were once even pre-Saddam members of the Ba'ath Party (see Allawi), and represent the remaining Baghdad elite (Shi'a division), all of whom, of course, were trained by the Jesuits at Baghdad College and all of whom have spent between 10 and 45 years in the West. They represent almost nobody but themselves. The second group consists of the los-de-abajo Shi'a poor, who have rallied around the troglodytic ABD (all-but-desertion) resentful Moqtada al-Sadr, whose face shows exactly what he is, and who support their own Jaish-e-Mahdi and of course some militias. The third group consists of the slightly better off, and slightly more presentable, leaders and members of SCIRI and Daw'a, competing parties, with ideologies or personal agendas that can hardly be distinguished by non-Muslim Iraqis, and need not be. They claim to listen to Sistani, and Sistani, it is claimed by the Americans, is simply solidly on the side of right (that, of course, is nonsense) -- see www.sistani.org and scroll down until you find the list of what is "najis" or "unclean" in the view of Sistani -- you'll find yourself on the list.
Then there are the others, including possibly the most touching and impressive political figure in Iraqi public life, Mithal al-Alusi, the son of a professor of classical Arabic literature, supporter and signer of the St. Petersburg Declaration of "secular" (mostly apostates) Muslims, and a brave visitor to Israel. It should be no surprise that when Mithal al-Alusi's party ran, in a nation of 27 million, it received 4,500 votes. Policy cannot be made on the basis of the nearly infinitesimal group of thoroughly secularized and westernized Muslims. Moqtada al-Sadr has at least a thousand times the support of Mithal al-Alusi, and were the most savage of Sunnis to run, he would command Shi'a millions as well. This is something that the Bush Administration and those who still wish to support its Iraq policy simply cannot comprehend, or will not allow themselves to comprehend.
No one in the intelligent past would have found anything remarkable in the notion that one needs to know what moves the minds of men -- and in the case of Muslim men, above all else what moves them is Islam -- and to know the history of a place, ancient and modern, the history of its people or peoples, their manners and customs and desires and motives.
And without some sense of Iraq's past, in a past-controlled part of the world, with adherents of a belief-system who insist on living, especially in times of mental and emotional desarroi, in that past of fabled and exaggerated greatness, no sensible policies can be constructed.
Here is a florilegium of quotations, culled quickly from both Iraqis (rulers and scholars, including the formidable Elie Kedourie, a Baghdadi Jew who at the university level was educated, and made his celebrated academic career, in England) and non-Iraqis, and how one wishes they had been known, and studied, and thought carefully about, in Washington four years ago:
#1. The Commander of the British Forces that wrested Mesopotamia [Iraq] from the Turks, 1917:
"To the People of the Baghdad Vilayet... our armies have not come into your Cities and Lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators. Since the days of Hulaku your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of Strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken into desolation and you yourselves have groaned in bondage. ...It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance that you should prosper ...But you, the people of Baghdad, ... are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised again. O! People of Baghdad. ... I am commanded to invite you, through your Nobles and Elders and Representatives to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the Political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army so that you may unite with your kinsmen in the North, East, South and West in realising the aspirations of your race."
[Source: Atiyyah, Ghassan: Iraq : 1908 - 1921 : A Socio - Political Study. - Beirut : The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1973 p. 151.]
#2. Gertrude Bell, 1920:
“In the light of the events of the last two months there's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anything that I or anyone else suspected. It will have to be fundamentally changed and what that may mean exactly I don't know. I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern - and failed. I personally thought we tried to govern too much, but I hoped that things would hold out till Sir Percy came back and that the transition from British to native rule might be made peacefully, in which case much of what we have done might have been made use of. Now I fear that that will be impossible.”
[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]
#3. Gertrude Bell, 1920:
“We as outsiders can't differentiate between Sunni and Shi'ah, but leave it to them and they'll get over the difficulty by some kind of hanky panky, just as the Turks did, and for the present it's the only way of getting over it. I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil.”
[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]
#4. King Faisal of Iraq, 1933:
"Regrettably, I can say there is no Iraqi people yet, but only deluded human groups void of any national idea. Iraqis are not only disunited but evil-motivated, anarchy prone and always ready to prey on their government." – King Faisal I, writing in his memoirs shortly before he died in 1933.
________________________________________
#5. “There are only two political parties in Iraq: the Sunni party and the Shia party.” – Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister, 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950.
________________________________________
#6. In "The Chatham House Version" the scholar Elie Kedourie comments dryly on the description by the far-less-great scholar Majid Kadduri (in his own book, "Independent Iraq") of “the wise leadership of Faisal, who inspired public spirit in every department of government”:
“If this [Khadduri's description of Faisal] were in any way true, there would be no accounting for the degraded and murderous politics of Iraq from the end of the mandate to the end of the monarchy.” [i.e., from 1932 to 1958, when first Qassem, and then the Ba'athists, took over, and things became even more degraded and much, much more murderous].].
“The fact is, of course, that this kind of language is most inappropriate to Iraq under the monarchy or afterwards.”
.........
“Lack of scruple greater or lesser, cupidity more or less unrestrained, ability to plot more or less consummate, bloodlust more or less obsessive: these rather are the terms which the historian must use who surveys this unfortunate polity [modern Iraq] and those into whose power it was deliverered.
Do you think such material, had it been thoroughly read, in its full context, and digested, might have helped make American policymakers a bit more realistic and less messianic about Iraq? Do you think Richard Perle would not have so excitedly declared in 2003 that he wouldn't be surprised if a boulevard were named after George Bush in Baghdad? Or that Wolfowitz would estimate that the "cost" of the Iraq War might be "$20 billion," and therefore so much more of a bargain, than the cost of the sanctions program --when the cost now, at a minimum, has been estimated at between $1 and $2 trillion dollars, if the costs incurred for the treatment of the wounded, and the macroeconomic costs (see the paper of Stiglitz and Bilmes, and if you wish, forget the macroeconomic costs and take the lower figure, and if you like, reduce even that to something we can all agree on as an absolute base -- say, $750 billion)? Or that Bernard Lewis would confidently predict that when the Americans overturned the regime the spectacle of rapture and gratitude in Baghdad "would make the liberation of Kabul seem like a funeral procession"?
They forgot, or didn't know, with their narrow certainties and dependence on Bernard Lewis. A false choice was offered: on the one hand there was the usual crew of appeasers and hirelings and simply ignoramuses (and they were and are appeasers, and hirelings, and ignoramuses), people who cannot conceive of Islam being the problem. These were the espositos and william-polks and scowcrofts and the djerijians, who wanted nothing done to upset anyone. There was the belief that Harold Rhode, so uncritically worshipful of Bernard Lewis, see Douglas Feith -- so dependent on Harold Rhode, see Cheney, who was so certain about so many things, and similarly thought Lewis the last word on everything to do with Islam, and Iraq -- not a hint of any consulting with the live J. B. Kelly, or the writings of the dead Kedourie. or for that matter with others, including Bat Ye'or -- it was apparently a false polarity: either Lewis, or the likes of such apologists as Esposito, or just as bad, that fake "old Iraq" hand William Polk, with his predictable appeasements. No other conceivable alternatives. There is a good deal that Bernard Lewis is able to forget, or didn't know -- (look at his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords, and his grotesque minimizing of the menace of Islam and the mistreatment of the dhimmis, quite unlike his two coevals S. D. Goitein and Gustave von Grunebaum on the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Islam) and what would almost certainly happen once the despotism of the Sunni Saddam Hussein was removed? And wouldn't a knowledge of Islam have told them something about the prospects for real "democracy" as opposed to the vote-counting (that the Shi'a were happy to participate in, and voted for whomever their leaders told them to vote lemming-like for?). In other words, isn't a knowledge both of Islam and of the history of Iraq essential, so as not to engage in the kind of folly that is being engaged in.
The Americans, had they informed themselves, would then most likely either have
1) left Saddam Hussein in place, if indeed there was no real reason to suspect his possession, or his being able to acquire, weapons of mass destruction or,
2) if there was indeed sufficient reason to believe [we still do not know that, do but those of us who were long willing to believe that the government was reasonable in fearing the existence of WMDs or of the ability of the regime to acquire them -- I was one of them -- are looking more abashed every day] that he either had or was attempting to acquire, or could soon start acquiring or making, such weapons.
What are the most important things to study to figure out what makes sense, for the wellbeing of Infidels, at this moment, in Iraq, given the instruments of Jihad as we can now identify them, and the behavior, ignorant and often pusillanimous, of much of the Western world?
It is history. The history of Islam, both doctrine and practice. The history of Iraq, especially of Iraq since 1920.
Not "psychoanalysis." Not the "generally applicable rules of counter-insurgency" such as "insurgencies tend, on average, to last 10 years."
As Ibn Warraq noted in his brilliant essay, comparing Islam and Fascism, both are belief-systems fixed on past glories. Compare Mussolini on "Mare Nostrum" (the Mediterranean) and the greatness of Rome, or for that matter, Hitler on the supposedly bottled-up greatness of the Aryan or Germanic peoples, and his dithyrambs, and that of his ideological collaborators, on the past greatness of Deutschland, and even more than Germany, of the Germanic peoples, with that natural energy and life-force, so different from the Slavs and Latins and everyone else.
You didn't have to psychoanalyze anyone to comprehend that living in the past is essential to Islam. And that helps to explain something: the significance of Iraq and Baghdad to Sunni Arabs everywhere. Because they live in that Muslim mythology, and because Baghdad was for 500 years the most important city in Islam, at the time of Islam's greatest glory (for Arabs Constantinople doesn't count -- it was the center for their oppressors, the Ottoman Turks, not for Arab Islam), they simply cannot allow it to be controlled by those "Rafidite dogs" the Shi'a.
When historians write about the years 2000-2008, they will gasp at the expense, at the squandering, at the obstinate naiveté and failures of intelligence (of every kind) and of imagination. They will be amazed at the lack of ability of the people in charge to comprehend, to articulate, to instruct, and to protect. They will be flabbergasted at the trillion dollars wasted, at the great damage done to the morale of the military and to its capability, at a time of peril. They will not understand why nothing started to be done, then, about the campaigns of Daw'a and the slow but seemingly inexorable (it is not inexorable, it can be halted, and it can be reversed, but this requires a recognition of the problem and an intelligent awareness of what is at stake, and what is permissible – (see the Benes Decree of 1946 for a guide) considering the demographic conquest of the heart of the West -- Europe.
The historians will compare the failure of our leaders, or rather, of those "taking a leadership role" -- with the intelligent awareness, and acts of mass auto-didacticism, whereby many, including those who come to this website, have begun to undertake their own study of Islam, because they sense the discrepancy between what they are told in the press and on television and by their "taking-leadership-role" leaders, and what they see all about them, if they are not deaf, and dumb, and blind.
The political class, the ruling classes, the elites all over the West have failed. They failed when, without study or thought, they began some thirty years ago to let in Muslim migrants. They failed when they continued to avert their eyes from what such migration meant for the indigenous Infidels, their legal and political institutions, their freedoms, their art, their free inquiry, their physical safety. They failed for all kinds of reasons. Stupidity, cupidity, timidity - the Esdrujula Explanation that has been put up here many times. They will not be forgiven by posterity. So many things, now so difficult to deal with, could have been so easily avoided in the first place, had intelligence been properly applied.
Future historians will sum it up this way:
Never have so few done so much damage to so many.
Posted by Hugh at April 28, 2007 7:42 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Here's a longish article (worth reading) on American military preparedness for "the Long War":
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 28, 2007 7:51 AM
Am still trying to gauge why folks will not read this stuff. Or much of it. They sniff and say, "bigotry." (The Islam101 piece could start more gently, for example; we are speaking not of the writer's integrity, but of good marketing. And don't you sniff about THAT, dear writer.) Or they wonder about the credential of the writer. (National Review now refers to Robert Spencer as a scholar, but this was not always the case and is not the case in other minds. "Who is this guy? What is his purpose, really?") Or they find the prose too thick or the content boring.
Hugh, this is a good essay. When is the book coming out? When will you rephrase content the reduces the reader's understanding? (I mention the language issue -- "What drivel," you say -- again and again because you are writing a political tract, a tract that may yet help the situation, and you want it to be accessible to the little people, those who do not know what the phrase "tout en faisant" means. And by the way... What does it mean?)
Posted by: StillBreathing at April 28, 2007 8:37 AM
here's a quote from the article, previously cited on American military preparedness: "For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of security conditions in Iraq."
Posted by: StillBreathing at April 28, 2007 8:41 AM
Hugh wants us to encourage Kurdish independence at the same time he wants us to withdraw from Iraq so that our ability to protect the Kurds becomes much more problematic.
He wants to walk away from a fight against radical Islamists in Iraq at the same time that he wants to engage in a fight with radical Islamists in Darfur. And what happens when the IEDs and suicide bombings begin there? Will he again call for withdrawal? Will he again insist that we keep our entanglements with the Islamic world at a minimum? In a recent essay, it seems to me he advocated that we stay in Darfur only until the Darfurese have declared their independence from Khartoum. What happens once were gone? Isn't this a recipe for more bloodshed, more genocide? Like Iraq, as bad as things are in Darfur, they could get much worse.
I'm not necessarily opposed to intervention in Darfur. But not a come-and-go intervention that does nothing to resolve the problem. I don't believe in kicking up a hornet's nest and then leaving the aftermath to the locals.
There is something profoundly incongruous with the policies Hugh is advocating on these two issues.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 28, 2007 9:46 AM
Should we have left Saddam in Kuwait? His hold on power was weakened by his quick defeat, after which we called on the Shia and the Kurds to rise up. Saddam's actions resulted in the UN-declared "no-fly" zones which the US and Britain were given the task of monitoring and we all know how that turned out.
As prescient as Gertrude Bell was, she was not living in an age of jet travel and nuclear weaponry and ballistic missiles. It was easier for the people of her time to go in and raise mayhem and leave, confident they wouldn't be attacked in their own home. Can we forgive President Bush for believing that the world had changed after 9/11 and that something needed to be done? Short of creating a Muslim-free zone in the West, what was he to do?
As for Saddam's WMD program, why shouldn't we look back on the 1990s (with hindsight, I admit) and realize that the sanctions were being violated and Saddam was manipulating the world community to end them so that he could "feed his people". Why shouldn't leaders have feared that the elimination of UN sanctions and the departure of inspectors would have resulted in Saddam building up his stocks again? His behavior during that time suggested a man trying to hide something. His apologists say that was necessary for him to maintain his mystique and keep control of Iraq. But what would those same people have said in the wake of a WMD attack or even a threat to use WMD? They would have accused the president of "ignoring the obvious" and then again we would have heard how stupid he and his people were. He can't win, either way.
Sunnis who had castigated Saddam for invading Kuwait had begun lionizing him for standing up to the US. Would any of them have done anything to control him? There was a certain logic in going after him while he was down.
Shouldn't one result of this fiasco be the expulsion from the UN of any country with a tribal power structure? That means Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq and who knows how many more would have to be kicked out. How can Pakistan be a nation when tribes in a border region have prevented the government from operating? They don't even have local rule. It can be argued that they are not nations.
For good measure, can't we please send the UN back to its parent's home in Geneva? New York City has enough to worry about.
Posted by: PMK at April 28, 2007 10:13 AM
"He wants to walk away from a fight against radical Islamists in Iraq at the same time that he wants to engage in a fight with radical Islamists in Darfur."
The difference is that our engagement in Iraq does nothing to halt the spread of Islam; it merely is an attempt to prop up a supposed more modererate form (which, in Iraq, doesn't exist).
In Darfur, the battle would be waged with the goal of impeding the expansion of Islam. An insurgency is less likely because the US wouldn't be inbedded amongst Islamic peoples. To my understanding, there is a clear distinction between Islam and Christian peoples in Darfur. If that's the case, we would be aligning with a true ally, rather picking and choosing between ideological enemies.
Posted by: Musburger at April 28, 2007 10:23 AM
(see the Benes Decree of 1946 for a guide)
there you go again, you can't help yourself Hugh.
The Benes Decree is and was an injustice based on the notion of collective guilt.
Based on that principle, all the Native Americans and Afro-Americans should have deported all the Anglo-Saxon Americans back to England. I guess that, if they had been the victors, they may well have done that. And guess what, they may have deported the ancestors of those few that have done so much damage.
at April 28, 2007 10:32 AM
"tout en faisant son petit Orwell."
maybe... "while promoting himself as our little Orwell." not sure. would someone tell me? i'll even accept the snideness of a poster inclined to use knowledge as a stick. "As everyone knows, the phrase means..."
Posted by: StillBreathing at April 28, 2007 10:54 AM
Barry Rubin of the Jerusalem Post had a good column last week called "Putting the impossible first", in which he listed trying to heal the divisions in Iraq as an example. Essentially, Rubin agrees with Hugh.
I think Iraq is like any other problem. It should have been considered in phases: analysis first, followed by plans and contingencies. The day I heard Donald Rumsfeld admit that the insurgency was not anticipated I knew for sure that the analysis was deeply flawed. Even I, a mangy curr, could remember back during the first Lebanese war in '82 when the Israelis invaded to kick Arafat out, the Shiites greeted them as liberators, but after a while they were attacking the Israelis. The day Saddam's statue was pulled down I remembered that. Looks good now, but just wait.
I think we need to be in Iraq, but in the right way: away from population centers as much as possible, sponsor a secular dictator, and sieze the oil fields.
at April 28, 2007 10:56 AM
If the Iraqis had been as sane as the defeated Japanese or Germans or Italians they would NOW be reaping windfalls in every realm.
Oil wealth, a polite, stabilizing police force of "occupiers" (who would be glad to leave the second any Iraqi stability raised its head), a new infratructure (the first sanitation system in their history), modern electronic communication for all, a free press, no more torturing tyrant in absolute power, etc., etc., etc.
Instead, for reasons that run back to a "spoils dispute" in the 7th century between Shi'ite Ali and the more cosmopolitan Sunnis, they chose chaos, terror, lunacy and a "holy" blood feud.
If we can calm them down for a minute, we'll be glad to get the hell out of their neighborhood.
It's the Islam that poisons their common sense and natural instincts for building a better life for their children.
They'd rather kill for the past than build for the future.
The sooner we can contain them enough to move to other "battlefronts" (securing our own borders, developing alternative fuels, etc.) the better.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 28, 2007 11:05 AM
PMK says:
Shouldn't one result of this fiasco be the expulsion from the UN of any country with a tribal power structure? That means Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq and who knows how many more would have to be kicked out. How can Pakistan be a nation when tribes in a border region have prevented the government from operating? They don't even have local rule. It can be argued that they are not nations.
If a President were to adopt the policies suggested in Hugh's essay, I do not think that the U.N., and who belongs as member and who doesn't, will count for much.
becuase Hugh says, and I agree, that:
"Yet the war in Iraq is most definitely not a case of "national emergency" but of willful ignorance of ISLAM, lack of imagination, lack of wit, lack of knowledge about Iraq, at the very top" (my capitals)
So, lets say the "very top" becomes enlightened, as they should, and announces withdrawal. The must give a reason. They will announce their enlightenment and say they now know of the nature and history of Islam, and that Muslims in Iraq are not worth our efforts any longer, and for that, we will let the Shia and Sunni's (Iran v. Sauidi's, Kuwait, et all arabs) sort it out.
If Danish cartoons get worldwide muslims excited to the point of rage and expressions of violence, what of the reaction by the Muslim world,( and the non-muslim world) including members of the U.N.? The US will be isolated for calling a spade a spade regardless of the truth of the matter.
The EU weeks ago questioned the practice of using the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" so as to not give offence to Islam by suggesting a link between violence and Islam ( becuase we all know it is Amish terrorism we should all fear). Do you really care about the U.N. membership when our closest allies ( EU or NATO, what will be the difference?) are so deep in denial about who our enemy is?
How will the world react to an announced policy based on a belief that Islam is basically unredeemable and is the biggest threat to the survival of the West? Can you see a president making that speech and the worldwide reaction that follows?
I can see it. I don't really care how the rest of them react in the short term. Either Hugh is correct or he is not. Europe is in denial. The reactions of the U.N. and our own membership will be least of the difficulties. We cannot wait for a Western consensus or a U.N. resolution to confirm these views.
at April 28, 2007 11:10 AM
Explain me this. Why should games be islamic.
www.islamic-games.com
Islamic games is being held in south brunswick shcool?. Can someone explain why township resources are used to promote islamic games?
By the Way why should games be islamic?
Why should country be islamic?
Are rocks islamic?
Are animals islamic?
Where will this stop? I can't understand.
Concerned Citizen
Posted by: Desi at April 28, 2007 12:17 PM
Although I think Hugh is right about Iraq, the question in my mind is "how do we keep the world economy from collapsing as a result of the muslim conflict that would result in our leaving Iraq for them to settle it amongst tehmselves?"
The need for the U.N. to be in the U.S. is long past. Send them to Paris to not pay parking tickets and assume diplomatic immunity.
Posted by: walterc
at April 28, 2007 12:27 PM
Desi-
Islam is nothing but games.
To baffle the infidels with their b.s., primarily.
Seeking greater influence everywhere.
You start with the smaller, least alarming, and most "multicultural" areas, like "sports", and then work outward.
It is a spreading rot.
"Gaming" the suckers.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 28, 2007 12:28 PM
Mr. Fitzgerald, respectfully in the late 1700's a gentleman defined your statements exactly about allowing a nation to sort things out on their own as it was none of America's business. His name was Thomas Jefferson concerning France which was in upheaval.
Another American disagreed with Mr. Jefferson in foreseeing the disaster which was coming if a nation was allowed to implode and the ramifications which would foment in a Napoleon strong man coming on the scene to teach the nation to behave.
His name was John Adams.
Adams and Jefferson became bitter over it with each not budging......until years later the old men began exchanging letters. Jefferson upon looking back at almost 10 million French dead, France in ruin, Europe convulsing (and what Jefferson would not know would be the foundation for two world wars) that Jefferson finally saw that France sorting things out caused the murder of millions and continental wars.
Whether you will believe it or not, Iraq is the same situation and your policy which is starting to be carried out is about to create a massive black hole which will suck the entire world into a massive war which billions will die.
I have the deepest affection for the Kurds, but your statements do not take into context there is a very obstinate Turkey which has a history of genocide and is currently bashing the dickens out of Kurds. A canton autonomous Kurdish people is quite acceptable, but the solution you advocate would only inflame Turkey causing an implosion.
The correct policy is a Kurdish canton intra Iraq. The correct pressure on Syria is autonomous Assyrian and Christian cantons with Azerbijiani cantons inside Persia.
A Kurdish state would either require more American troops or it would bring about the genocide of Kurds from a united Turkey, Syria and Iran who would then be another massive problem for the Israeli state or have to be settled with by another war by America.
With where this is going Mr. Fitzgerald, there are not going to be historians concerned about writing things. They will be concerned about survival.
The people who look back on this will not be concerned about costs (costs in economic sense are a misnomer as President Bush needed to keep the world from a depression had the Fed Reserve print billions of dollars which needed to be invested in something. War purchases were an effective way to keep the world economy afloat. "Cost" is relative in economics as the intention of the Federal Reserve has for the past 40 years been one of inflating debt out to fuel expansion. This benefits the banking cartels, robs the middle class of wealth and creates wealth on paper and not in Adam Smith produced wealth.
So speaking of costs is not viable as an arguement as economists in this fractal system run this system by debt as that is how it is designed.)
The issue that people will look back upon is this instead:
Why on earth did America when it had Iraq, could have developed all that oil to fuel the world economy, had terrorists contained to be killed in Iraq, did Americans leave the prize and allow an implosion which let loose the first weapons of mass destruction?
Syria with it's stores of plague aimed at the Israeli state, bin Laden and Iran with confirmed nuclear weapons purchased out of the old Soviet bloc and terrorists attempting to spread this to world war is what the people looking back will wonder why people did not understand and threw away a policy which was working to keep the lid on.
This Mr. Fitzgerald is what is coming. When it proves correct, none of this is going to matter who was right and who was wrong as all of us are going to be in the worst situation where it is not going to be a matter of living, but one of existence.
President Bush tried to stop this, but the Islamists want the war thinking they can ride it out and gain victory as they get the Europeans, Russian, Chinese, Americans, Indians and Japanese nuking it out.
Your policy has won Mr. Fitzgerald and the debate is over. America is out of Iraq. The Middle Eastern peoples have turned to Europeans, Chinese and Russians as dependable. Terrorists are now flushed in the crack down to bring Jihad to the western world and all of will have to cope with the consequences.
It is no longer moral or immoral or right or wrong. There is no debate in this as people with the WMD have chosen sides and the world is now waiting for the first fissure to erupt to terrify it.
The big war follows just like it did for France as it spread into the world.
at April 28, 2007 12:33 PM
"Whether you will believe it or not, Iraq is the same situation and your policy which is starting to be carried out is about to create a massive black hole which will suck the entire world into a massive war which billions will die."
-- from a posting above
Utter nonsense. Simple assertion, wild in its illogic, and without any evidence at all.
As for the usual business from Cornelius, whose learning curve at times shows signs of rising slightly and then, alas, slides right back, seeking as water seeks its own level the more comportable horizontal plane, the reply to his endlessly repeated objections (objections to which I have endlessly repeated, and though he is never able to reply, he never is willing to accept what he apparently finds unanswerable but still objectionable) has been given by Mr. Musburger above, to whom I am grateful.
There is no inconcruity, no contradiction, between wishing to push back Islam where the policy makes sense (as in Darfur or as elsewhere in East Africa with Ethiopia as the receiver of American weapons and intelligence and other support) and where it does not, because the outcome desired by the Administration is the reverse of what it should wish.
There is no contradiction there, and a moment's thought should make that clear.
Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 1:11 PM
"tout en faisant son petit Orwell" -- while doing his little Orwell.
Comical Kitchens has a shtick, and the shtick is called being that of Speaking Truth to Power, and Bravely Breaking With the Left, and Coming Out Four-Square for the War in Iraq. If this is the kind of thing that you think should earn him plaudits -- well, chacun a son gout.
He sticks by his old pal Edward Said. And the incoherence of his views, even now as he attempts to board as much of the Ibn Warraq-Ayaan Hirsi Ali band wagon (he will describe both of them as "his friends" which comes as ness to both of them, I'm sure), for he's a dab hand at sensing the fashionable wind and getting aboard. Speaking Truth to Power (personified by the cheekbones of Katherine van den Heuval) my foot.
Posted by: Hugh at April 28, 2007 1:14 PM
@ Leave Iraq Now:
The UN long ago lost most of its credibility. The revelation of Oil-For-Food (which would still be going on today if not for 9/11) means the UN is human waste that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
However there are too many internationalists who dream of a global village and just can't let go of this "great world body".
If we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater let's at least give it a new home - off of American soil. The US (and NYC) could free itself of the glommers who call themselves "diplomats". If a future president wants to open a new session of the General Assembly then he can fly to Geneva or to the next logical site, a city that prides itself on its sophistication and is the center of its own world - Paris.
Posted by: PMK at April 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Is that you, Dick? You seem to defend bush at every opportunity. So I'm thinking (just like Un American, I just doin' some thinking) Lame Cherry is the pseudonym for Dick Cheney. DC is lame, or very nearly so. Cherry/Cheney. While admittedly not arising to proof, let's just call it a good working hypothesis.
Anyway, LC, your posts mark you as a true ideologue. You never mention, or gloss over, bush's very serious mistakes in waging this war against islam (even though bush has never & would never use that term), mistakes for which he & he alone is responsible. Let's start w/ the most obvious one: leaving our borders open. Are you going to blame this on the democrats, LC? Or perhaps you would assert that porous borders in a time or war against an unconventional enemy is nothing to be concerned about.
Another obvious mistake: bush's failure to call for more efficient energy use. I know the other day you railed against those evil democrats for blocking drilling in ANWR. ANWR would only help us on the margin. In the first place, even if ANWR had been green-lighted 2 years ago, after factoring in the time for developing the fields & building the pipeline,its oil wouldn't be added to our supply for several more years. All bush had to do after 9/11 was to tell the American people that due to forces beyond our control (no need to refer specifically to islam), it would be vital for us to use energy as efficiently as possible to minimize our vulnerability to disruptions of the supply of foreign oil. That would mean changing our driving habits, though not so much that we would have to change our lifestyle. He could have, & should have, couched it in terms of our patriotic duty. I'll bet that public participation would have been very high. & i'll also bet that we could have cut our consuption of oil for transportation purposes by at least 5%. That's a very meaningful step in the right direction that would have a near-immediate impact, unlike ANWR. But no, LC, it's bush,good; democrats, bad.
One last tell is your apparent agreement w/ bush's inane statement that the saudis are our friends. If your judgment on the 3 simple issues mentioned above is so faulty, I really wonder where you gain the confidence that would allow you to see the aftermath of our pull-out from iraq so clearly. Oh, sorry, you're a bush acolyte. he sees all, knows all & always makes the right decision. bush's self-confidence is misplaced & so is yours, LC.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at April 28, 2007 1:15 PM
Lame Cherry
Ya know, you actually get my attention sometimes and even enjoy your comments until.... you post things like this:
"Syria with it's stores of plague aimed at the Israeli state, bin Laden and Iran with confirmed nuclear weapons purchased out of the old Soviet bloc ..."
and this:
"Your policy has won Mr. Fitzgerald and the debate is over. America is out of Iraq."
Now, before I read anyone elses comment, if I can remember to, I look for the author beforehand, to see if I will be wasting time.
Please, if you want to keep this viewer's attention, please back up such outragous coments with some real evidence of what you claim, otherwise, please don't waste my time.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at April 28, 2007 1:17 PM
Gertz was right...
1) CIA did an active coup attempt against a sitting President,
2) POTUS found out,
3) fired his comrade-klintonski-appointee @$$
4) & he wants revenge for getting caught...no we see the springer mentalities coming out like jackals at a feeding,because he knows he has such notable neo-COMs refusing to prosecute any of his cronies (in waxmans own words) "no matter what".
What a circus.
lol
at April 28, 2007 3:27 PM
"If this is the kind of thing that you think should earn him plaudits -- well, chacun a son gout."
chacun a son gout "to each his own"
ok, hugh. instead of learning about Islam on weekends. i'll learn French. fine.
do you what "fine" means? it's the female "f" word.
Posted by: StillBreathing at April 28, 2007 4:04 PM
oh! Hitchens on Islam:
http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165038/
Posted by: StillBreathing at April 28, 2007 4:14 PM
l do not see a good backing out of iraq without rewarding the terrorists and states sponsors of terrorist, ie iran , syria. Hugh's points are well taken, but no answers to my question above has ever been fully given.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at April 28, 2007 4:47 PM
Stillbreathing’s link at the top of the thread is to the Armed Forces Journal. It’s a widely-read publication for servicemen. The linked article was about a failure of military leadership, AFJ has previously been critical of the Bush administration. It is not a 'company' publication.
The link below describes the process to submit an article for publication in the Journal. Ralph Peters blathers nonsense in the current issue about occupation doctrine. I’ll respectfully suggest that Hugh or Robert submit an article to the Journal regarding Islam 101 for military members.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/custserv/guidelines/
at April 28, 2007 4:50 PM
MUSBURGER: "In Darfur, the battle would be waged with the goal of impeding the expansion of Islam. An insurgency is less likely because the US wouldn't be inbedded amongst Islamic peoples. To my understanding, there is a clear distinction between Islam and Christian peoples in Darfur. If that's the case, we would be aligning with a true ally, rather picking and choosing between ideological enemies."
RESPONSE: For the record, the Darfurese are NOT Christian, they are Muslim. Hugh wants to involve us with these Muslims, to save them, perhaps to die for them, but he's hell bent on walking away from those Iraqi Muslims who are fighting for Democracy and against the most rabid kind of fanaticists.
He wants to save the black African Muslim from the Arab Imperialist, but his plans to walk away from Iraq imperile the Kurdish Muslim in his own fight with the Arab Imperialist (or the Turk, or the Persian).
I'd say that is incongruous.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 28, 2007 4:58 PM
Lame Cherry - "Whether you will believe it or not, Iraq is the same situation and your policy which is starting to be carried out is about to create a massive black hole which will suck the entire world into a massive war which billions will die."
WOW!!!
And I thought that Al Gore was hysterical.
i do believe that he has a challenger.
Posted by: feralcat9 at April 28, 2007 5:18 PM
chacun a son gout "to each his own"ok, hugh. instead of learning about Islam on weekends. i'll learn French. fine.
do you what "fine" means? it's the female "f" word.
Posted by: StillBreathing
"Fine", the female "f" word, Now that's one language I don't need to look up either. . .(insert cheesy grin here)
HUGH FITZGERALD FOR SECRETARY OF STATE IN '08
Posted by: justamomof4 at April 28, 2007 5:25 PM
While I feel we never should have went into Iraq in the first place (as Saddam was not our biggest terror threat) I find it delusional to say lets just leave and let the Muslims all kill each other and weaken the House of Islam. A scenario where Iraq falls under the total control of Jihadists and Iran is not acceptable. And who falls next Saudi Arabia ? Does anyone have any idea how the West could be brought down if Iran and the rest of the Jihadist held control of all the oil fileds in Iraq and Saudia Arabia and cut off the oil supply to the West ?
Posted by: TheRegulator at April 28, 2007 5:51 PM
ustamomof4, glad you were amused. and pez, you have a good idea, which also might add to the fire of enlightenment. If the bosses aren't reading this thread anymore, you might repeat that idea elsewhere:
"I’ll respectfully suggest that Hugh or Robert submit an article to the Journal regarding Islam 101 for military members.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/custserv/guidelines/ "
at April 28, 2007 6:13 PM
Well regulator:
This is why the list of importers has changed.. dramatically, and the top names are changing month by month...note where saudis position isn't anymore
now (htye haven't been #1 in a long time):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
it's also one of the main reasons their islamicommie allies, aka, 5th columnists of their unholy alliance within are frantically trying to stop drilling domestically using long disproven bogus reasons.
They're also directly responsible for thwarting attempts to buid new refineries here, and have been doing so since 1976...for the same reasons they touting snake oil schemes to scare everyone.
Islamofascism isn't the only bunch trying to bring America & the entire western civilization down.
;-)
Posted by: jcom972 at April 28, 2007 7:22 PM
Cornelius says:
"..., but he's ( re: Hugh F.) hell bent on walking away from those Iraqi Muslims who are fighting for Democracy"
I have 2 questions for you
1. Can you point to any reported and verifiable incident of conviction to fight, valor, bravery by name, incident, place or time to support your statement that will identify exactly who those Iraqi muslims are who are fighting for democracy?
I am not saying such incidents and Iraqis don't exist, but I haven't heard of any, have you? In fact I saw just the opposite 2 weeks ago when PBS broadcast a segment on "America at Crossroads" that showed how recently trained Iraqi soldiers were sent to Fallujah to flush out insurgents and then refused to fight becuase they say, they didn't realize they were expected to fight other Iraqis!! There were other illustrations showing no conviction whatsoever for Iraqis to stand and fight and yes, even risk their lives, for the democracy you claim they are fighting for.
Or, perhaps you can point to some successful milestone we have reached. Some great bridge that has been constructed or hospital or University anything to show we have made some progress after 4 years, $800 billion and 3000+ lives?
2. Why do you think democracy will succeed and flourish when Iraq's constitution, adopted just last Nov '06, by the vote of the the people through a democratic process, included the adoption of Sharia law? How does a country develop into a true western democracy when its very constitution provides authority to disregard freedom of religion freedom of speech, equality of gender and equal rights? ( same question here applies to Afhganistan).
Let's say we stay and fight and wipe out all insurgencies and leave, with a democratic government in place, just as it appears you would want. What will prevent Iraq from becoming a theocratic state like its nieghbor Iran when its legal system develops the brutal system of justice inherent in the observance of Sharia law?
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at April 28, 2007 7:42 PM
Bush should have had pseudo-elections to install a secular muslim strongman, then let him take care of the muslim fundamentalist opposition. Why the hell is it we always did that in Latin America whenever there was a socialist threat (Pinochet), but absolutely refuse to do this with Islam? How well do you think trying to co-opt "moderate" socialists in Chile during the Cold War would have worked out for the CIA?
If you don't have the stomach to do the nasty things necessary to be a global power, don't meddle in global affairs, you'll get your @ss kicked...but then, we seem to find the stomach to do the nasty things in absolutely the WRONG circumstances and places and end up helping our enemies (see the State Department Kosovo independence push...like global jihad, after the mess in Iraq, needs another shot in the arm).
Essentially, the bizarro foreign policy of this administration boils down to being unwilling to set up a secular strongman in Iraq to take on the Sunni and Shiite jihadi movement who would then use drastic means to take out the individuals who are tied to the jihadi movement, presumably that would be undemocratic and immoral. So they set up a muslim fundamentalist government that does have ties to the global jihadi movement, both Shiite and Sunni, and then tries to make these people like us by setting up muslim fundamentalist strongmen in places, like Kosovo and Chechnya, with ties to the global jihad and which use drastic means to take out individuals who are non-muslims, or moderate muslims.
Somehow that is not undemocratic or immoral? Or more importantly, somehow that is believed to be a workable policy? Why not instead just install someone in Iraq who is willing to do to the Sunni/Shiite jihadis what the guys we installed in Kosovo are doing to the Serbs, wouldn't that make more sense?
Because if you loosened the rules of engagement in Iraq and make the Iraqis and the insurgents pay a heavier price for the insurgency, you could likely even get some to turn on their comrades - see the current president of Chechnya, a former jihadi himself who now sends out death squads to hunt down current jihadis.
Though he didn't switch because the Russian Army was building schools for the Chechens, because General Petraeus didn't write the Russian insurgency manual..and yeah, the Amnesty International complains about Russian conduct in Chechnya, and guess what, Russia just ignores it and NOTHING happens, but we seem to believe that human rights groups should determine US Army rules of engagement, but then we're blessed with the MSM and the Democratic Party, while in Russia journalists sympathetic to muslims jihadis tend to throw themselves out of windows...
Getting a former Baathist general to switch sides or someone else to do the necessary things to pacify Iraq and limit attacks on US troops would be achievable if the administration wasn't under the delusion that the mess they have put in place instead in Iraq is somehow a democracy and pro-American...
Essentially, Bush lets Amnesty International and the Saudis set his "WOT" strategy and ends up largely spinning his wheels (but blowing billions of dollars in the process)...
at April 28, 2007 8:48 PM
Buckley asks whether the Republican party... can survive the fallout from the Iraq war.
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0Ng==
Posted by: StillBreathing at April 28, 2007 9:24 PM
"Bush should have had pseudo-elections to install a secular muslim strongman, then let him take care of the muslim fundamentalist opposition. Why the hell is it we always did that in Latin America whenever there was a socialist threat (Pinochet), but absolutely refuse to do this with Islam?"
godfrey,
The Cold War was a different time. We had leaders who were not afraid to play hard ball and they were willing to forsake "democratic principles" abroad for the sake of our security here at home. They were willing to risk bad press in order to maintain the balance of power. Today they have renounced that path and repented and said we will no longer "work with dictators". That's why we have to deal with Erdogan. If we ever repeated the Iran experience of 1953, the world would be a better place but no one would care because they would be too busy hating the US. (Although why we should care about that, I don't know.)
The secular strong men in Islam were allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The non-military (more religious, or oil potentates or both) nations were allied with the US against the likes of Khadafy, Assad, Saddam and Nasser.
Since Vietnam, the Democrats in this country have destroyed our foreign policy, making it all but impossible for us to deal with "bad guys" anywhere in the the world. Listen to them. One minute they accuse the US of putting Saddam in power and then they lambaste the US for removing a sovereign government.
Leaders of both parties today are the let's be loved type. They'd rather see this country go down the tubes all the while holding on to our principles than do what is necessary to preserve the gift we have been given. Given a choice between popularity and survival, they'll choose popularity every time.
Posted by: PMK at April 28, 2007 9:48 PM
I posted above asking for evidence of successful projects in Iraq and a few hours later saw this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29reconstruct.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
Not much progess at all.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at April 28, 2007 11:50 PM
Cornelius says...
"he's hell bent on walking away from those Iraqi Muslims who are fighting for Democracy and against the most rabid kind of fanaticists."
???
What?
at April 28, 2007 11:51 PM
NY "slimes" is also a very unreliable source for objective information, as exposure of their examples have made, as David Horowitz can attest to.
Once respected, the "gray lady" is a lot grayer than it used to be.
I believe Hugh also did a segment on this group:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003804.php
You won't get anything positive from the "slimes", aka, "finkelsteins folly".
Posted by: jcom972 at April 29, 2007 12:07 AM
Hugh's above proposal to leave Iraq to its own devices does not set out one of the key justifications that must be made for his position: it has to be shown that, although there are various types of Islam-influenced governments in the world, no type is better or worse than any other type, as far as the global strategic interests of non-Muslims are concerned. Hugh has ridiculed the Light Unto the Muslim Nations idea, but it is relatively easy to do that. Never mind the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. What about the far more modest idea of a government relatively moderate and open? Is it impossible or useless to try to accomplish that goal? Hugh seems to be taking one of the two following positions:
1. Hugh apparently thinks that even the most moderate and open sort of Islam-influenced government feasible would not be sufficiently moderate, open, or beneficial to non-Muslim interests to warrant an American effort to establish it.
2. Or else Hugh thinks, I suppose, that while the most moderate type of Islam-influenced government would be more desirable than immediate American withdrawal and letting the Iraqi governing chips fall where they may, yet the Americans have no decent chance of establishing even a relatively moderate and open government in Iraq.
In taking one of those two positions, Hugh may be too impetuously ready to throw away possible strategic advantages of establishing one of the less-bad types of Islam-influenced government. I am not talking about establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq. I am merely saying there are a range of types of Islam-influenced governments, and some of those types are far more strategically beneficial to global non-Muslim interests than are other types of Islam-influenced government.
Also, Hugh is in this case favoring global instability over global stability, and believes instability, allowed to explode in Iraq upon American withdrawal, would benefit global non-Muslim interests. Perhaps, but it is a course with its own significant risks. Hundreds of thousands, or millions, could die over a period of years in civil war and in a larger regional war that could open up. Regional wars can become world wars.
Further, if we withdraw, the view worldwide will not be that we did it for Hugh's reasons. The overwhelmingly regnant gestalt will be that the U.S. was defeated. This will give a truly huge morale boost to jihadists worldwide: they will feel like King Kong roaring and beating his breasts, and arguably will be inspired to more ambitious actions in greater numbers with greater funding. This must be balanced, of course, against the loss of Muslim morale that could come with the descent of Iraq into the bloody chaos of civil war.
But even civil war among Muslims in Iraq would have some morale benefits for them: I gather that chaos in Iraq would be seen by many in Iran as confirmation of the Iranian messianic advent: according to Ahmadinejad and many others, the return of the madhi messiah can be accelerated if human beings increase the chaos on earth.
However that may be, has Hugh anywhere made either argument #1 or #2 above? I haven't seen it.
Posted by: traeh at April 29, 2007 12:12 AM
Lame Cherry says...
"Syria with it's stores of plague aimed at the Israeli state, bin Laden and Iran with confirmed nuclear weapons purchased out of the old Soviet bloc and terrorists attempting to spread this to world war is what the people looking back will wonder why people did not understand and threw away a policy which was working to keep the lid on."
???
What?
How is this current policy keeping a lid on a nuclear war?
How is this current policy winning the war against the Islamic aggression?
How is this current policy defending the homeland from Islamic invasion?
The answer to all three is simple...it is not!
at April 29, 2007 12:16 AM
LEAVE IRAQ NOW: "1. Can you point to any reported and verifiable incident of conviction to fight, valor, bravery by name, incident, place or time to support your statement that will identify exactly who those Iraqi muslims are who are fighting for democracy?"
ANSWER: The Iraqi Kurds have fought valiently side-by-side with US forces. Non-Kurdish Iraqi soldiers and police have been victimized by the terrorists in much greater numbers than Coalition forces. Iraqi Sunni tribal forces have recently fought pitched battles against Al Qaeda in Iraq and have driven them from many of their sanctuaries in Anbar.
To suggest that Iraqis are unwilling to fight the insurgents is a base inaccuracy.
LEAVE IRAQ NOW: "2. Why do you think democracy will succeed and flourish when Iraq's constitution, adopted just last Nov '06, by the vote of the the people through a democratic process, included the adoption of Sharia law? How does a country develop into a true western democracy when its very constitution provides authority to disregard freedom of religion freedom of speech, equality of gender and equal rights? ( same question here applies to Afhganistan)."
RESPONSE: There is much that is wrong with the Iraqi and Afghan Constitutions, but there is space in both for political pluralism. I'd rather have an Iraq and Afghanistan run by a democratically-elected government in a quasi-democratic society, and militarily aligned with the West....than dominated by Al Qaeda or the mullahs in Tehran or the fanatical Taliban. Perhaps you see no difference; I happen to think the difference is significant, particularly as regards to America's security interests.
Finally, may I ask your opinion of Hugh's advocacy of intervention on behalf of Darfur's Muslims at the very time he advocates withdrawal from Iraq? Incongruous?
Posted by: Cornelius at April 29, 2007 12:23 AM
Hugh
Judging by the some of the comments above you have along road ahead. Thankfully the idiotic Democrats are about to save us from the idiotic pseudo-Republican in the White House who got us into this mess so all this is a moot point in the end.
No doubt afterwards we will need the idiotic Republicans to then save us from what ever stupid plan the Dems come up with when dealing with Iran.
Which is better death by Fire or by Ice??
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
by Robert Frost
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at April 29, 2007 12:30 AM
ya know comet:
We may not agree on everything, but when you're right, you're right.
(Actually I was thinking along the lines of "ersatz" over "pseudo-" but that will do for the point).
Pretty sad, we have to depend on the lesser of the evils to get something done...even I hope someone up there will grow a spine.
I give kudos on this one.
Posted by: jcom972 at April 29, 2007 12:44 AM
jcom972
"We may not agree on everything"
Hey sometimes I don't agree with what I said yesterday....
Change is not a bad thing when based on facts and logic.
at April 29, 2007 1:46 AM
This is very tempting, but the world economy runs on oil and such a war between the factions of islam will send the price of oil so high that the entire world will plunge into economic chaos.
Posted by: chockfullonuts at April 29, 2007 2:42 AM
The Allies won WWII, but for all the valor and grit displayed by our men, a great underlying reason for our victory was that the USA was the largest producer of oil in the world at the time. The Nazis and Japanese started their offensive wars with the goal of securing oil resources. All of their military prowess could not reverse their fate for they lacked the most essential element of the modern battle field--oil. Today it is our enemies who hold the oil card...between the Islamic countries of the Mid East, the Chavez socialists of latin america and the hungry for revenge for the ColdWar Russians...we are in a tight spot. This is the motivation behind Bush's Iraq policy...I liken it to the ole magician's tablecloth trick...to somehow change the foundation while leaving the structures standing, causing no harm. The United States economy will collapse if the price of oil is doubled.
Posted by: chockfullonuts at April 29, 2007 3:46 AM
Nope...it's a 2-way street.
They won't let it get that high, as last year it actually ended up hurting them, too...by less purchases (from many curbing back their activities).
Couple that with the fact that saudi dropped to #5 importer for us (see my eia.doe.gov post in the other thread) and continues to drop (Saudis have heavy sweet, most of our refineries do light sweet, of which 100% of our west coast refineries are only producers off light, not heavy).
Then couple that with the fact of our strategic petroleum reserve being full now (75 day supply)... now run this scenario:
A total arab oil embargo on the west (not just the US).
We can last 75 days before shutting down and collapsing, starting, say for example...NOW.
The arab states will last 15 days before going broke (and that means no payola loot for their extortionists like al qaeda).
Our alaskan pipelines capacity has never exceeded 50% flow rate...ever, but that can be changed NOW.
THEN combine that with the vast majority of Americans will voluntarily do their patriotic duty and cut back everywhere they can (and based on last years efforts, that's a LOT) making our reserves even more so.
THEN the kicker...
Although it can also be a disadvantage, saudi is also #2 debt holder (behind china at#1) and would also go broke on that alone, forget the fact that china will NEVER allow THAT to happen..yet (because it would collapse their own economy, not to mention their military buildup fund, and they're not ready to take us on like they planned according to the disconcerting threat matrix given to President Bush the minute he took office 2001).
See, although I don't like this global integration BS either, it, too, is a 2-way street & has its advantages, like the above situation.
Who breaks first?
The scenario has already been rehearsed under worst-case scenario (just to make it fair to the islamofascists).
I don't think so...not without it destroying themselves in the process (read that as total collapse of their own power & control rackets).
Not gonna happen.
:-)
Posted by: jcom972 at April 29, 2007 4:43 AM
here's the clash of ideas:
should we stay or should we go? thoughts in no particular order of importance.
if we go, we pull out of the shiite & sunni areas. we maintain a base in the Kurdish region to protect them, keep a land-based presence in the region & discourage the Turks from invading.
3+ years after rebuilding iraq, we are nowhere. there's no end to the current mess in sight. I can't see how anyone can claim that staying in iraq indefinitely would give us a reasonable chance to turn things around. And as for staying there to ensure that the iraqi gov't is friendly to the West, i don't think there's a chance that we can count on any democratically-elected gov't there being a true friend of the West. In all important matters, it will be aligned w/ Iran.
Yes, pulling out would embolden jihadists around the world. But this effect can be mitigated somewhat by sending a single AC-130, some drones & advisers to Darfur & kick the janjaweed's (or whatever it is they're called) ass. From what I understand, those thugs roam from village to village spreading their message of peace. with spy satellites & drones, it would think it wouldn't be hard to catch these guys on the open road. When that happens, scramble the AC-130 & in a few minutes you'd have scrambled thugs. I may be completely wrong, but that makes sense to me.
lastly, our military is breaking down under the strain on tours of duty without end & reduced furloughs. the well-being of our military should be our top concern. how in the world would an indefinite commitment in iraq save our military from a complete breakdown? I see bush has already given himself another extension (until Sept.) to decide whether his surge is working. That's what, 7-8 months for this strategy to prove itself? My God, wars have been won on less time than that.
And please, all you bushbots stop w/ the bush knows what he is doing. if he is in iraq to prevent the price of oil from going sky-high, he would have made energy efficiency a national priority on 9/12. it seems to me he's more interested in dancing to the tune of his oil buddies so they can collect those $400 million pension packages (exxon's lee raymond) than he is in gradually weaning us off of mideast oil.
if we pull out, i admit there's a non-negligible risk that the mideast could explode. but it would most likely explode b/c of iranian action, & it seems to me that withdrawing our forces from iraq (except for the kurdish north) would give us a freer hand to deal w/ iran militarily.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at April 29, 2007 11:27 AM
Sheik,
I like your plan for protecting the Kurds. It's the only reason to leave even a single American soldier in Iraq. The Kurds would know better than to play the "occupier" card. Of course that means they will effectively become independent (a la Taiwan) and who in the region will stand for that? As long as an American president has the guts to stick to it, I approve wholeheartedly.
As for Darfur: That's another good idea as long as the US is willing to take the heat for the first "wedding party" or "funeral procession" or "ambulance" to be hit by a drone. I'm not sure our leaders have the fortitude.
The first press conference held outside the bombed out house of "an innocent civilian" will result in the drones being called off.
Posted by: PMK at April 29, 2007 12:20 PM
sheik yer booty:
I'll play devil's advocate to my own earlier post and try to argue a little for Hugh's position: even if we manage to establish a relatively moderate and open government in Iraq, experience shows there is a good chance the most radical elements would flourish there. Palestine and Egypt and Pakistan perhaps all suggest that conclusion. Alternatively, if we withdraw immediately and a dictator eventually takes over, that, too, would be a threat to non-Muslims. The country under a dictator could easily be an incubator of jihad and global sharia goals. So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, and from that point of view, Hugh's position makes sense.
But I still wonder if I have oversimplified everything. It still is possible to imagine that we might establish a relatively moderate government that would be less of a threat to us than what would emerge if we withdraw immediately and permit full civil war to break out.
If we withdraw immediately, the world and jihadists will be convinced we lost and the jihadists won. The jihadists will thus find confirmed their belief in the Islamic destiny to rule the world, since they will, according to their own and world opinion, have defeated the greatest power on earth.
Even more, if hundreds of thousands or millions die in the resulting civil war, protestations from Hugh and Robert seem unlikely to prevent the U.S. from feeling responsible and taking in tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from the reason, which over years could turn into hundreds of thousands. That, in my view, would be a disaster.
Posted by: traeh at April 29, 2007 1:34 PM
treah:
"But I still wonder if I have oversimplified everything. It still is possible to imagine that we might establish a relatively moderate government that would be less of a threat to us than what would emerge if we withdraw immediately and permit full civil war to break out."
I, too, think what you say is possible. But I just don't see us having greater influence in iraq than iran, & iran has absolutely zero interest in a moderate government.
total agreement w/ your last paragraph. Admitting thousands of muslim refugees into the US under those circumstances WOULD be given serious consideration & it WOULD be a terrible mistake.
"If we withdraw immediately, the world and jihadists will be convinced we lost and the jihadists won."
As i've already indicated, I agree w/ this sentiment. However, if as Hugh has pointed out, we could then shift our focus to issues that are just as important, if not more so, than the military struggle against islam: namely, $ flow to the middle east & the demographic situation. It seems to me that at present, we are at a stalemate on the military front (& the perception already is that the momentum has swung against us)& losing on the money flow & demographic fronts. it's a debatable point, but that situation strikes me as less desirable than withdrawing from the iraq front & focusing our efforts on the money flow & demographic fronts. I realize that the military & non-military fronts in this total war aren't mutually exclusive & could be pursued similtaneously. But right now, victory on the money flow & demographic fronts is more important to our survival than iraq.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at April 29, 2007 2:39 PM
jcom
everything you posted is true if one assumes that the forces wishing to preserve the status quo can in fact preserve it. Ahmadinnerjacket has said repeatedly that he wishes to pull the whole tent down in order to bring about the mahdi's return...OBL @ Co. have an atavistic desire also....they'd be happy in a preindustrial world. Those who espose an apocalyptic strategy have no reason to preserve the SQ or seek stability, in fact it serves their purposes to cause cataclysmic economic damage. It shall prove much easier to destroy the modern world than it was to build it. The forces for stability (banks, investors, corporations, govts) are the reason we are fighting such a limited, PC war. It is yet to be seen whether high tech and money can defeat the Islamists. These are still just the preliminary stages of the latest "Great" war. Don't underestimate the Toyenbee-like hatred that the world has for the USA.
Posted by: chockfullonuts at April 29, 2007 4:06 PM
Genocide is a dirty word these days but geoncide has been the standard of warfare since the beginning of mankind. What makes us think that we're so different?
Posted by: chockfullonuts at April 29, 2007 4:08 PM
chock:
I understand the point you're conveying...
(it's ok, we're looking at two sides of the same coin)
I am simply giving a status report on the capitalist structure should such hypothetical occur, and in response to the notion stated earlier implying that western world would somehow collapse economically (it came off as we'd be destroyed, and they would come out on top), and that simply isn't the case.
They would sustain (even without a military response) cataclysmic damage to their own position, far in excess of ours, so even if we were on the short end of the stick, theirs would prove far worse.
(yes, neither would come out unscathed...but their positon is far more fragile than ours)
This basic mentality of theirs was the same one as that of the 9/11 hijackers "knock down a few buildings and you'll bring America to its knees",
and it didn't quite happen as they planned.
The only way they'll hurt us is by an E-bomb, taking out electronics/technology...but that will be temporary, as we're known for our adaptability.
We're also well aware of the hatred for us, which we care little about (when you have more guns than all of histories military forces ever combined, you don't need to care what anyone thinks, as we've been hated no matter what we did, short of total surrender, and even that I doubt would make a difference).
All in all, I understand your take, and going to give you a wide berth on this for discussion on it should you wish to add more...I appreciate your input, thanks.
at April 29, 2007 8:38 PM
[from jcom972:] "We're also well aware of the hatred for us, which we care little about (when you have more guns than all of histories military forces ever combined, you don't need to care what anyone thinks, as we've been hated no matter what we did, short of total surrender, and even that I doubt would make a difference)."
This thread was starting to depress me, thanks for that bright spot, jcom972.
Question for someone- I probably missed something but I've heard no talk of the the post-US Iraq landscape vis-a-vis security postings on oil fields, air bases, etc. Presumably these would be substantial and involve not a small amount of equipment and support staff? Surely this is a very different thing that complete and total withdrawal of all US personnel?
Posted by: lycaste at April 29, 2007 11:12 PM
Cornelius
Re First Part
I did ask for examples of Iraqis fighting for democracy. You point to sunnis fighting Al- Queda.
I'll accept that such sunni participation in the fighting occurs, but I do wonder what it is they are fighting for? Are they fighting out of a sense of nationalism or patriotism becuase they have agreed that giving their lives for the sake of liberty is wortwhile? I don't think you know for sure. Call me a skeptic but I would need more proof. Are these local sunnis just trying to rid the locality or region of violent invaders, or, outsiders? I see no such nationalism or patriotism.
I also asked asked about examples of progress and coincidently this is published re: failed projects in Iraq:
I still think that is at least an open question whether there are Iraqis actually giving there lives for the sake of establishing democracy.
Until such time as you can point to some examples ( an article a link perhaps?) it is not, as you say, a base inaccuracy.
Re Part 2. You beleive our efforts are worthwhile becuase a psuedo-democracy is better than none?
Well then that is what you , and our president ought to agree is the actual mission. That kind of democracy, without gaurantees of personal freedoms and rights of individuals, which is, I agree, better than nothing, is not however, worth the cost of lives and resources spent and that will be spent, on the possibility same might be installed.
And as far as Iraq as a potential military ally is concerned, do you mean you think it all worthwhile so that Iraq might follow the model of our great NATO partner Turkey? Or perhaps another reliable ally such as Pakistan?
Once again, I say , no thanks, not worth it.
at April 30, 2007 1:43 PM
If you really want to weaken the house of Islam, stop feeding them.
Army's always suffer their greatest losses when running away. Always.
Iran needs to be dealt with. That is the real issue. Always has been, and will be until it is addressed. The Demoncrats can't win an election with one going on without openly making surrender a campaign issue. It is going to be made one by the Republicans.
All the demoncrats scheming is to have a firm end date prior to the election. Bush won't comply. The Middle East in general will make all the noise necessary to see that it will never happen.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 30, 2007 9:32 PM
True, but Iran isn't the biggest baddest wolf.
Its mentor is...
We're not quite ready for that one...yet, but Iran will do nicely in the process.
Posted by: jcom972 at April 30, 2007 9:39 PM
Cornelius,
Don't know if you still read this thread but, just for the record, as they say. This is in response to your claim about sunni's fighting for democracy.
Seems that some think sinnis jihadist are simply fighting AlQueada jihadist:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016257.php#comments
at May 1, 2007 7:49 AM
Cornelius,
See this about those sunni soldiers "fighting for democracy":
"The Iraqi army's administration has not kept up with its recruitment. Some units don't want to be deployed away from their home districts. On any day, one-quarter of the force is on vacation every four."
found at : http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/30/riminton.iraqtroops/index.html
Fight the enemy by day, then dinner w/ wife and the kids; a week off every month for a trip to Disneyworld.
What's not to like. SIGN ME UP!!!
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 1, 2007 11:19 AM
"The best means to do this is to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islamic Jihad, not through the baseless notion, promoted by some, that “moderate Muslims are the solution” (those who at this point keep up this mantra will find themselves cutting off the limb they have climbed out on, though no doubt the government and foundation grant money, and lecture fees, will still flow in), but by exploiting the fissures, ethnic, sectarian, and economic, that are there, waiting to be exploited, if only they can be recognized and appreciated." Hugh Fitzgerald
This is where the rubber meets the road at the moment, Hugh. You show much the same cultural arrogance of which you accuse most everyone else. Yeah, there are fissures, and they're waiting to be exploited. And we can do a fair amount of such work, but we'll only ever be placeholding for the true equals of the Jihadis -- other Muslims. We are not the ones who can fully or even very effectively exploit any real Muslim, or Asian, or just about anybody else who is not "like us". Fitz, you cut a Kiplingesque figure, "the Westerner trying to hustle the East", or perhaps "The Quiet American" (except of course for your obvious lack of quiet purpose). The real and definitive defeat of the "Camp of Islamic Jihad" will be at the hands of those very "moderate Muslims" you derides. No one else will ever be able to get "up close and personal" enough to truly defeat the Jihadis, as they are now constituted. As I said above, though, we can do a good job of containment -- we'll just not be doing more than that, and if you think the Iraqi situation looks like a long term mess, well, consider the mess if we decide that it is we non-Muslims who can defeat the Jihadi. Is that a future worth having?
at May 2, 2007 10:48 PM
(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.)