| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The naivete of American "counterinsurgency experts" is breathtaking. They are apparently deeply impressed with their own abilities at being able to buy the cooperation and goodwill of the “Iraqis.” Yet this is temporary cooperation, and temporary cooperation, both for reasons of self-interest. That goodwill and cooperation proceeds only from the fact that the Sunnis of Iraq do not have the identical goals, or have identical interests with, the Sunnis outside Iraq who have come to join Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. And when the latter began to attack the former, naturally the former were inclined to fight back against the latter.
And in doing so, the local Sunni tribes found a few wannabee Lawrences, flaunting their ability to "understand" the locals, to "work with them," to sit and sip tea, to listen to their complaints and their demands (for more and more and more weapons, for more and more and more money, as those Sunni sheiks cannot believe their luck). These “experts” know how to be "culturally sensitive" -- c'mon boys, let me show you how a real counterinsurgency expert does it! Imagine the admiring looks as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, speaking that impressive strine, shows them "how to do it" with enormous self-assurance. No one dares to dissent, or to express openly some skepticism about those Basic Laws of Counterinsurgency he and others (General Petraeus, Dr. Conrad Crane et al.) arrived at, and set down, by ignoring Islam, and ignoring the fact that there are many different, mutually hostile Muslim groups warring for power in Iraq. Not a few of those have grown quite adept at using the Americans for their own ends, to derive money and military equipment from them, all the while stringing them along. They even manage to get the Americans to use their troops, risk their men, to fight against the enemies of this or that local Muslim group that pretends, for the moment, to be capable of being won over.
It's a farce, but for some the farce is never revealed, because there is always the awareness of just how much money and effort and how many lives have been spent. And so the very colossality of the mistake, of the failure to grasp the nature of Islam, and grasp just how the situation in Iraq can be properly used (by doing nothing more, nothing at all, to discourage ethnic and sectarian fighting, and certainly nothing to encourage the belief that the outcome of such internecine warfare is to be deplored or headed off), never becomes clear to them.
The Shi'a are warning the Americans about trusting the Sunnis. And no doubt the Sunnis -- not the tribal sheikhs of Anbar, but rather the Sunnis named Mubarak and King Abdullah of Jordan and assorted Saudi kings and princes and fixers of very variety -- have warned darkly of the treachery of those Shi'a, all of them presumably working for the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
It's a farce. Every act of the Iraqi business has been a farce. It was a farce early on, in the way that Saddam Hussein, a Sunni despot in a Sunni despotism thinly disguised with a Ba'athist "secular" facade, was trying to scare the Islamic Republic of Iran with his pretense of successful weapons production, and instead scared the Americans. He scared them so much that they invaded Iraq and deposed him, and the local Shi'a did the rest.
It was a farce when so many confidently foretold that the Iraq venture would be a "cakewalk." Kenneth Adelman, who makes a fortune traducing Shakespeare, and selling not his poetry, but potted little lessons in lifesmanship and salesmanship and executive-manship to the titans of business who find this all very convincing, very compelling, so predicted. Others predicted that "the liberation of Baghdad would make the liberation of Kabul look like a funeral procession" (Bernard Lewis). Still others predicted that an important site, possibly a square in Baghdad, would be named after Bush by grateful Iraqis (Richard Perle). It was a farce when the clever, plausible, smiling, westernized, altogether charming charmers convinced the naive Wolfowitz (see "Paul Wolfowitz, or, After Such Ignorance, What Forgiveness?") that they, the Shi'a in exile, knew how the Iraqis would react to an American presence there. Yet these Shi’a in exile had spent decades abroad. They had forgotten how primitive Islam, and those on Islam, can be. They did not realize how limited to Victor/Vanquished their conception of politics would prove to be. For all those exiles, as they lived comfortable lives in London or New York, themselves became versions of Western Man. It is easy to misremember, easy to forget. Yet they were able to convince all kinds of people that after the Americans had deposed Saddam Hussein, the gratitude would be unfeigned and long-lasting. And it made sense -- made sense if you were an American applying American logic, and the American understanding of the universe.
It was a farce when the Americans went ahead with incredibly expensive projects that, one should have realized all along, would never be finished, or if finished, would never be used by the Americans. There was, there is, that $595 million dollar American Embassy compound, a colossal waste. There are those giant airbases, that have been built on the assumption that the Americans will be allowed to remain, or should remain, in Iraq for decades to come, when it should be obvious that just as soon as this or that side thinks it has milked the Americans for all the money and weapons it can, it will send them packing. And the very idea that American bases in Iraq, largely Muslim and Arab Iraq, could ever be used against other Muslims, shows that the Americans have forgotten that the only reason they were temporarily allowed to construct and use American-built airbases in Saudi Arabia was to defeat Saddam Hussein, and only because he had invaded Kuwait and directly threatened the Al-Saud, and for no other reason. And there is also the example of Turkey, "staunch ally" and fellow member of Turkey, where there are and have been for many decades American bases, but from which bases Americans were not allowed to attack Iraq, and have been told they will not be allowed to attack Iran -- yet here is the American military, building these hugely expensive bases, again, right in the neighborhood, apparently incapable of understanding that no Muslim country is a reliable ally, and no large bases on Muslim-controlled land can nowadays be expected to last for more than the briefest period, when some temporary overlap in local and American interests takes place.
The farce continues now with these "counterinsurgency" principles being put in place by Petraeus et al. They apparently are focused so narrowly on doing their job in Iraq that they cannot see, cannot stop for one minute to see, that the war of self-defense against the Jihad would be far better conducted if American forces got out of Iraq. For it is absurd to think that "Al Qaeda will take over" when Al Qaeda in Iraq consists of a few thousand members, and in any case, even if somehow, magically, all of the local Sunnis were to suddenly forget their own grievances against Al Qaeda for attacking them, that still leaves more than 80% of the population of Iraq that is either Shi'a Arab or Kurd. Neither is likely to take kindly, in any way, to Al Qaeda -- which, as hyper-Islamic, stands for Arab supremacism and, furthermore, takes a dim view of the Shi'a as treacherous "Rafidite dogs."
Does General Petraeus think about what good can be done if Iraq is not held together? What benefits might accrue to the United States if Sunnis and Shi'a outside Iraq found themselves obligated to send money, men, and military equipment to support their co-religionists in Iraq? Does General Petraeus, does Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, does Dr. Conrad Crane, think about how we might have much more to gain from allowing the natural fissures, sectarian and ethnic, within Iraq not only remain, but use up the resources, and the attention, of Muslims outside, and might serve as a permanent source of division and demoralization within the Camp of Islam and Jihad?
Or is all they can see the "great success" about which they are so self-congratulatory in Anbar Province? Yet this is an utterly trivial success in the larger scheme of things, as is Iraq itself as a theatre in what is not a "long war" but rather a war without end. And what’s more, this is not a "war" mainly by military means, as generals and colonels naturally tend to think, especially if they are intently focused on a particular problem in a particular province, and not on the larger picture.
The larger picture tells us that the duty of Jihad is central to Islam, and will not disappear. It will remain as long as the immutable texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- continue to command belief. The larger picture tells us that the main weapons of the Jihad are not those explosives and guns possessed by Al Qaeda in Iraq, the weapons that the tribes of Anbar Province may claim require that their own armories be abundantly supplied and replenished by the ever-compliant American officers who have proven to be rough and tough and unfoolable, and have so often been fooled -- in a world where deception and treachery come naturally.
A few questions for General Petraeus, Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, and others who are applying the “lessons” derived from “the laws of counterinsurgency” and think it may take “at least a decade” for things to work in Iraq. First, how do you see the “mission” that you are attempting to fulfill, one gathers, by granting every item on the wish-list of Sunni sheikhs? These wishes are for still more billions in “reconstruction” projects, and for still more walking-around money to win friends and influence Sunnis, and especially, for still more of that impressive American weaponry that all of the Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, Sunni and Shi’a, are dying to get their hands on. And why is it, if the “enemy” is Al Qaeda, because it has done such damage to both Sunnis and to Shi’a, do those Sunnis and those Shi’a need to be bribed with money and more weapons, to get them to fight those who are their mortal enemies? Al Qaeda in Iraq consists of a few thousand admittedly most-determined men, but the Sunnis of Anbar have hundreds of thousands of potential fighters. And the Shi’a, with eighteen million of Iraq’s 27 million, could supply several million fighters if they wished, both trained in uniform, and irregulars fighting for their lives. Why must they be bribed, cajoled, hectored, inveigled, if they are such enemies of Al Qaeda, and such potential friends of the Americans? Why are they so hard to get to fight, and so needy when it comes to money and advanced weaponry that the Iraqis never needed before? Why?
And finally, repeated from above, the same question: what is the “mission” anyway? We keep forgetting, we being the American public. So tell us again. President Bush hasn’t been able to quite connect the dots, to tell us how a unified Iraq, as opposed to an ununified one, and how a strong and prosperous Iraq, as opposed to one riven by sectarian and ethnic strife, even if it merely low-level but certainly unextinguishable strife, will help us. How will it help, for example, limit the threat of islamization in Western Europe, or help render campaigns of Da’wa and the Money Weapon less effective? Tell us in detail how the outcome in Iraq, or at least the outcome toward which you are working, would help in achieving the goal of halting and reversing the advance of Islam, and of reducing the menace to Infidels everywhere? How would the “mission” that you apparently uphold weaken, by dividing and demoralizing, Islam?
If you can’t answer these questions, to your own satisfaction, just imagine how little satisfied we who ask them would be with whatever response you might unconvincingly cobble together.
Now do you see why your even mentioning that it might take a “decade” -- of more squandering of men, money (total cost of the Iraq venture to date, including committed future costs, but not macro-economic ones, is $880 billion, or more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, ever fought by the United States) doesn’t exactly inspire confidence?
And another question: if what happens in Iraq is absolutely “critical” to the Western world, or to the world of Infidels, if the outcome in Iraq is absolutely “critical” as Bush says, in order to avoid “chaos” and “catastrophe” (whose chaos, and whose catastrophe?) in the Middle East, with the implied endangerment to those all-important oil supplies, then why is it, do you think, that China and Japan and most of Western Europe seems sufficiently unconcerned to have done nothing except, in a few cases, to send some small amounts of aid (Japan) and a few hundred or at most a few thousand troops? And those troops were sent not out of felt necessity but only in order to curry favor with, or pay back past favors from, the United States. The sole exception has been Great Britain, and that is owed to Tony Blair. Neither the head of the army, General Dannatt, nor many of the British army’s most articulate retired officers (see the views of General Sir Michael Rose by googling “Cut And Runner” and “Hero of Baghdad” simultaneously) think it makes any sense, if it ever did, for British troops to remain in Iraq.
And what do you think they are thinking in Beijing at the spectacle of the mighty American army tied down in Tarbaby Iraq? What do you think they think in Beijing, which also buys oil on the world market, just as the United States does, about that war in Iraq which has cost the Americans $880 billion, and cost China… nothing?
Look around the world at the scope, the menace, and instruments of Jihad. Look around the world and see what a fantastic squandering of American resources Iraq has been and is. Look at what damage has been and is being done to the American military, to its readiness, to its equipment, to the quality of its recruits, to the retention rate of many of its best young officers including West Point graduates, and to the attractiveness of the military for potential recruits to the Reserves and the National Guard, many of whom feel used and abused far beyond what anyone had any right to expect of them, and treated with indifference or far worse by the army. What do you think all of this means, and why and how can you continue to be yes-men, in Andrew Bacevich’s telling phrase, for the Pentagon civilians who concocted this thing, and are too embarrassed, given the enormity of the mistake, to begin to own up to it, while no one else among the loyalists of the Administration seems capable of doing so either?
Go ahead. Please answer these questions. We are all waiting. We are not in favor of appeasement. Quite the contrary. Here at this website, and at many others, hundreds of thousands, millions of interested visitors, think an American withdrawal makes sense because it will provide the only "victory" that the Infidels, that is we, can achieve. (See "Victory Stands Shining Before Us" and five hundred similar postings.) We are waiting to hear from a general, or generals, because we have given up on Bush and his loyalists, to tell us exactly why staying in Iraq makes sense.
We kept hoping to find, in the many pronouncements of Bush and Rice and Cheney about Iraq, something that approached common sense, something that hinted at an awareness of the nature and scope of the worldwide problem. But we have never managed to do so.
So we ask you, in the military, now in Iraq, those who talk of "counterinsurgency laws" and about how the "mission" may take another "decade," to explain exactly, in detail, how a certain result you are working towards will diminish the threat of Jihad, and weaken its main instruments.
It is now June. The "surge" started more than four months ago. The war in Iraq started more than four years ago. It has already cost this country, one has to repeat, more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, ever fought by the United States. That money, some $880 billion, might also have been spent, for example, on energy projects of every kind. It might have been spent not only on energy projects, but also on guarding the borders, and on paying for a vast counter-Jihad propaganda effort, not only in the Lands of the Infidels, but in an effort as well to peel off, from the ranks of the army of Islam, Western converts, and also non-Arab Muslims who should be more systematically informed about Islam's role as a vehicle for Arab imperialism.
Is there no one, if not among the generals, then among the colonels and majors and captains, who does not share this view? Is there no one who does not think that the cleverest thing the United States can do now, the most effective thing, is to withdraw promptly, leaving not a rifle behind, from Iraq? Is there no one who realizes that far from deploring sectarian and ethnic strife in Iraq, the U.S. should do nothing to discourage it, since in any case it cannot be avoided, but can be properly exploited? For our ends. Not theirs.
Perhaps someone who has served in Iraq can comment here. Perhaps it will be someone who has, with his own eyes, witnessed the seemingly remarkable, but in fact predictable, indifference by "Iraqis" to American losses, or even the delight taken in them by our various "friends" in Iraq. Perhaps it will be someone who has witnessed or heard of the many examples of cowardice, of laziness, of even treachery, by members of both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police, cowardice and laziness and treachery for which American soldiers have had to pay while their leaders prate about the "laws of counterinsurgency" and about the importance of "winning hearts and minds" that cannot, not permanently, and certainly not unfeignedly, be won.
The squandering, in any case, will come to an end in the first few months of 2009. No one can be elected who does not promise to bring the American effort in Iraq to a rapid halt.
What now to be decided is whether that total withdrawal will be undertaken by those who want to return to the appeasement of Islam that the so-called "realists" such as assorted scowcrofts and brzezinskis think is the only possible alternative (and in this they are joined by jimmy-carters galore, not of the "false realism" school but rather that of undisguised and unapologetic appeasement), or will it be made, as one hopes, by those who wish to conduct this war more cleverly, more effectively, and in a much less costly -- in every sense -- manner?
Posted by Hugh at June 19, 2007 10:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
When you don't understand who you are fighting and why , you are bound to make a few mistakes.
I don't think any of these leaders have ever peeled an onion, had they they would perhaps begun to see that their is no truth to the myths they hold or the lies they believe and realize the WOT game is over, except the crying.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 19, 2007 11:36 AM
I agree about our naivete concerning what we're dealing with in Iraq, but then, we went into Iraq because we were naive enough to believe that Islamic societies valued freedom and justice as we do in the West, that given a chance, they would choose democracy over theocracy.
Everythig we've done there is based on some level of naivete, so what's new. If our political and military leaders ever really came to realize the reality of what they're dealing with, they would probably have nervous break downs.
Posted by: rational
at June 19, 2007 11:55 AM
Is there any country in the Middle East, aside from Israel, that we should worry about "betraying", any "ally" that we would "leave in the lurch"?
I'm having trouble coming up with any names.
Would it help if any of our leaders, civilian and military, remembered the Cold War? The war against communism was fought on many fronts, most non-military. We didn't trade with Communist countries (generally). Each side had its own trading blocs. What would happen if the developed world refused to sell industrial products to the Middle East or refused to trade with one of its chief enablers, China?
Hasn't the post-cold-war globalization made such a strategy next to impossible? The one-world group, with the UN as its front man, seeks to downgrade borders (of the US, anyway) and has pretty much said that no country has the right to bar movement of any individual anywhere in the world. Translation: borders mean squat.
Our new "strategy" can be summed up in one word: business. No policy that gets in the way of business can be enacted again.
Whether it's the business of drilling for oil or selling arms, no country is our enemy. The world is one big happy family, except if you're a non-Muslim in a Muslim country.
Maybe if the gullible US stopped sending its precious young people to any country and recalled those that are currently serving abroad, the rest of the world might notice? 9/11 aside, the European apologists are likely to be the first to fall to Islamic tyranny. At the very least, they're going to fall right along with us. Do they not realize it or do they not care? Bread and circuses all around?
Posted by: PMK at June 19, 2007 12:03 PM
The link below leads to a recent article in The Objective Standard. While I don't agree with everything in the 23-page essay, I do appreciate the explanation that authors Yaron Brook and Elan Journo give for why the US administration misplaces hope in 'democracy' and the notion that the US should turn military resources into some bastardized peace corps/construction company/PR organization. Well worth reading and thinking about:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/forward-strategy-for-failure.asp
The essay makes convincing arguments that the administration is promoting a solution that is not compatible with the US constitution and which is actually at odds with the goal of security for the US Population.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 19, 2007 12:18 PM
Hugh,
Wolfowitz & Perle & Co were NOT naive, they knew full well the nature of their enemy (the Muslims). The cakewalk claims were just propaganda to get the American people on board.
Posted by: george_rem at June 19, 2007 12:38 PM
The muslims can be rented, but that's it.
Check out Abbas in the West Bank - that is because he can relate to the liberals in the West in that they both have a socialist tinge (the state can do everything). But he is an islamist as well and is out to destroy Israel and promote the Umma Uber Alles.
Umma Uber Alles.
Wake up Foggy Bottom.
Posted by: dgene at June 19, 2007 12:41 PM
A war that's not really a war.
An enemy who must not be named.
Friends who are actually enemies, or at the very least certainly not friends, even if they behave in a friendly manner.
A religion that's not a religion, but a socio-military cult.
Worshippers who worship nothing except hate, vanity, and self-service.
Churches that aren't really churches, but are armed compounds called mosques in which hairy clerics [sic] marshal forces for Jihad war terror if Fast Jihad, or forces of purposeful aggression if Slow Jihad.
Morals, very obtrusive morals indeed, that aren't morals at all, or even amorals, but are plainly immoral.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
When Infidels look at Moslems, as we have been a lot lately, things get real fuzzy. Definitions are blurred, meanings are mistaken, mistakes made intentionally, money paid, peace destroyed, lives taken.
Inebriated on hope and fear, left meandering by willful self-delusion, this is why we are committing cultural suicide by shooting ourselves in our collective head with Islam.
at June 19, 2007 12:42 PM
Wonderful essay.
This is, above all, a war of ideas. That is why the superintendents of the war have no idea what the war is about.
The supreme irony, is that the ideas of the enemy are just as absurd and ridiculous as they are powerfully gripping on believers.
Yet we do not engage their ideas, or worse, are told they are off-limits.
Certainly the mental habit of many in the West, especially those with any influnce, is to put them off limits.
Posted by: Moonzoo at June 19, 2007 12:47 PM
All of the problems we are having with Iraq are not new. Read some of the history about the British in that area after WWI and the problems they had trying to create a country from waring factions. Nationalists vs Islamists, Sunnis vs Shiites, tribal territories vs borders, and most importantly, foreigners vs natives. Things haven't changed.
Hugh is asking the right questions. Don't any of these guys understand history?They're using us now for military training and the acquisition of weapons. They have many many scores to settle amoungst themselves. It is foolish for us to think we can stop them.
Whatever course we take, we will long suffer the consequenses.
But then, Bush gave them his word, and that means everything, What a crock.
at June 19, 2007 12:49 PM
It just hit me. Bush is more concerned with the "Bush family legacy" in the mid-east than he is with America! After all, he does prefer foreigners over American citizens, right?
Posted by: crusader rabbit at June 19, 2007 12:57 PM
Hugh: You're close to convincing me that we should pull out. My remaining doubt is based on the suspicion that Iraq would devolve into another Somalia, or like the tribal areas of Pakistan, a place where nobody is in charge or accountable, and where all sorts of bad hats can maintain a base where they will be hard to find, and harder to terminate
Posted by: PapaBear at June 19, 2007 1:08 PM
"Wolfowitz & Perle & Co were NOT naive..."
--- from a posting above
I think you are dead wrong. Google and read "Paul Wolfowitz: After Such Ignorance, What Forgiveness." His naivete came, as Richard Pipes noted (Nov. 29, 2003, Boston Sunday Globe) from his being a weapons-systems analyst with little knowledge of history, and of the role in what might, sensu lato, be called the influence of "cutlture"), his highly-misleading encounter with Islam as the American ambassador in Jakarta, his romantic attachment to a Good Arab who could not possibly herself identify Islam as the problem but hoped to enroll American power in the good-government Betterment Project that was to transform first Iraq, and then the whole Muslim Middle East. As for Perle, who is more intelligent that Wolfowitz, he turned out to be a real child of the Cold War, and his services rendered to the country when he was, along with Dorothy ("Dickie") Fosdick, the aide to the great Senator Henry Jackson, were considerable. But apparently he didn't study up, didn't mug up, Islam. Like others, he was too busy to really study, and in Washington, with all of its meetings, and consultancies (see Hollinger Publishing), and all the trips everywhere, and all the everything, the kind of uninterrupted study in tranquillity that Islam demands, that the texts of Islam, and the making sense of the texts of Islam, and the history of Jihad-conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, requires the kind of study that cannot rely on the bullet-riddled executive summaries of others, and that certainly cannot be obtained merely by reading "What Went Wrong" or one or two other books by Bernard Lewis. Perle did not put in the time, and he continues to be wed, if his recent appeareance on Frontline are a guide, to a naive and hopeful view of the possibilites in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's not sufficiently piercing, or even necessarily cold-blooded, in his analysis. He and Wolfowitz are too nice. In dealing with Islam, it is necessary to be cruel, only to be kind. After all, if one really cared about the wellbeing of Muslims, what is the one thing one would wish for them? One would wish that they could have the freedom, the autonomy, to possibly escape from the Total System of Islam.
Furthermore, I detect a sinister, though possibly unintentional, implication in your insistence on naming Wolfowitz and Perle, but not on naming the chief instigators of the Iraq folly (for everytrhing beyond the search for WMD was folly), above all Bush and Cheney, Bush who was intent from the get-go to invade Iraq. What is that sinister implication? The same one that is implied when some people, such as Buchanan, toss around phrases like "neo-con" and then proceed, very deliberately, to list only such names as "Wolfowitz" and "Perle" though both Wolfowitz and Perle are long well out of it, while the great originals, Bush and Cheney, now ably seconded by Rice, continue to remain to "reconstruct" Tarbaby Iraq. The implication is that this was done by those who were interested only in Israel's welfare. By the way, Wolfowitz has never cared much about Israel's welfare, was always a believer in the "Two-State" nonesense, and has a sister who lives in Israel but supports the far, that is, the endlessly appeasing, left.
If you want to to avoid making people think you are implying something which, I am sure, you did not mean to imply -- or did you? -- then when you list "Wolfowitz, Perle, and Co." -- then be sure not to overlook the role of all those plausible Shi'a in exile, including Chalabi and Makiya and Rend al-Rahim and all the others, including of course Shaha Ali Riza,who had such an influence over the naive likes of Wolfowitz and others, and furthermore, make sure that the names Bush and Cheney are given pride of place, for Bush wanted to "deal with Saddam Hussein," all the reports suggest, from virtually the day he was sworn in.
Otherwise, you might be mistaken by some for a vulgar acolyte of the walt-mearsheimer school that sees an "Israel Lobby" that supposedly leads America astray (actually, that "Israel Lobby" has one big problem: it refuses to recognize the matter of Islam, the centrality of Islam, and in keeping away from that subject, has done neither Israel, nor America, much good), but that fails to see the real problem, over the past three decades -- the power of the "Saudi lobby" that buys the services and good will of all kinds of present and former government officials, former diplomats, C.I.A. agents, journalists, academics, and businessmen, and has done a great deal not only to prevent an understanding of Islam (and that, in turn, has kept those Americans responsible for foreign policy ignorant of the menace of campaigns of Da'wa and demographic conquest among our allies in Western Europe), but has effectively throttled, for three decades, any sensible bits and pieces of a plan to diminish or discourage the use of oil and its derivatives.
I allow myself to believe that you do not think that way, and do not want even the implication that you might, to stand.
Posted by: Hugh at June 19, 2007 1:10 PM
Hugh,
You were talking "experts", not politicians, thats why I brought up Perle & Wolfy.
But of course, Bush, Cheney, Powell, etc etc were as deceitful and as far-from-naive as Wolfy & the other "theoreticians" of neo-conism.
They were all warned that post-Saddam terrorism and civil war would ensue, but did not care.
And as to Chalabi, he was used for propaganda purposes, and as a potential excuse ("we were misled by an Iraqi, see, we were so naive!"). Nobody in the Admin gave a rat's ass about him and the party he supposedly represented.
All IMO of course.
Posted by: george_rem at June 19, 2007 1:52 PM
I think that using Sunni tribesmen to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq is an effective means of exploiting divisions in the Muslim world...something Hugh has been advocating all along.
One has to keep in mind that Hugh has become such an outspoken opponent of the Iraqi war that - not unlike the Western Left (but for very different reasons) - he has a vested interest in seeing us fail there.
Posted by: Cornelius at June 19, 2007 2:09 PM
A_Plague_On_Both_Houses
That was a terrific essay. Thanks for passing it along.
If one has to use force, it is just as immoral to use too little force, and drag things out interminably, as to use too much. If you have not defeated the enemy's will to fight, and merely temporarily taken away his means, you have not accomplished much. More likely, you have condemned multitudes on both sides to future suffering and death. Those concepts are taught (or used to be taught) at the service academies. It seems our leadership today does not believe or understand them.
Posted by: Stendec
at June 19, 2007 2:31 PM
I spend considerable time reading these days spread between the websites like this and books like those found in the books section here at JW. I keep the news on, mostly Fox, for stories about the developments on topics usually found here at JW. I am always looking for a sign from someone ( particularly politicians) who seem to "get it", so I can feel some comfort that someone responsible for my security, your security , will start to take actions towards protecting our nation, and, not to sound too far fetched, to protect our entire western civilization as well. I see nothing to give me that comfort.
I will not say I have exhausted all sources of material on jihad and Islam, but I have read a very broad spectrum of authors and commentators.
There is no one author more insightful, more compelling, and more knowledgeable about the history of jihad and its integration with modern polictics of the ME than Hugh Fitzgerald. I say this not just for blanket praise of Hugh's work. He is to be praised surely, but, the analysis and conclusions are beyond question and he must start to be taken seriously by policymakers.
Why are there no signs that anyone of any influence or power over our well being reads him? If Mr Tancredo reads this website then you sir must use your power to call hearings and put Hugh Fitzgerald before a committee to give his theories and sit for some questions. If media members are here then you need to cite these essays and discuss these issues regularly.
After reading this latest post I recall a story about a protester of the Vietnam war who went to the parking lot outside the office of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and poured gasoline over himself and lit a match. McNamara was able to see this horrific act from his office window and it haunted him the rest of his life. If I had the courage, and to get my president to do nothing more than read the above essay and answer the questions posed therein, I would follow the example of that protestor.
I am not an impetous man. Never attended a single protest or political rally my entire life( 53 years). Recently though, I write letters by email to politicains and the media. Most replies, even if I get one, are form replies. Nothing of substance ever comes back.
At this moment I am tempted to locate my congressman's office, if I had a gun, I would bring one. I would do no more than force him to sit down and read this essay and answer those questions. Nothing more, nothing less. Then I would find my Senators' offices and do the same.
But I could never do such things. It's not in me. But I would encourage or assist anyone who would. There has to be a way to get one of our political leaders to answer the questions posed in this essay. They owe it to us.
I said this before but I will again. Bush is beyond redemption. He would just as soon commit for 100 years, let alone 10. The announced presidential nominees are all behind this war for the same reasons Bush states, save Tancredo ( and what has he said or done within the past few weeks since the debate where he almost identified Islam as the problem?).
Thompson and Gingrich are the only hopes left. They both need to say something and take positions that will separate themselves from the others. Adopting the points in Hugh's essay would do that. I have cut & pasted this essay into an email to both. But I have written to them before and I am unaware if my emails were ever read by them.
Please join me and write:
Newt: http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2709
Thompson: fthompson@aei.org
You never know, someone of influence over these candidates just might read it.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at June 19, 2007 2:46 PM
From the essay:
"And finally, repeated from above, the same question: what is the “mission” anyway? We keep forgetting, we being the American public. So tell us again."
I speak to as many people as I can about the war and why it should end. I usually stop to ask "what is our mission in Iraq anyway?". The most frequesnt reply is "To get Al-Queda, if we don't get them there, they will get us over here".
I've asked military types what the objective is, as the commander-in-chief has so ordered. Typical response "To kill as many of those freakin' terrorist as possible".
Indeed, most americans cannot even tell you in a single sentence or thought, what our objective is.
at June 19, 2007 2:56 PM
Cornelius:
We have already won in Iraq.
The main issue is our goal in staying there, which should be - a stable government.
Sharon left Gaza, and aint that beautiful.
We will likely win in the secondary goal.
Posted by: dgene at June 19, 2007 2:56 PM
I don't understand why most people, if not all, who follow the daily tallies on an election one and a half years from now, are so ready to dismiss Rep. Tom Tancredo's prospects. Why? It's early and aside from Gov. Romney, no other candidate is willing to come close to naming the threats we face.
It's early and Tancredo doesn't come off as 'exciting' or polished, but why do we want that anymore? We need to keep writing to Rep. Tancredo and Romney and try to get them to come out with what they know. I think that's a better solution than waiting around for Thompson to commit to something. Gingrich, though brilliant, well aware and articulate won't be able to lead a campaign due to personality traits and lack of organization of the mundane. He is a brilliant thinker and could be the best advisor possible to 'someone else' who is campaigning... but Gingrich would never be able to get past the press and the lazy opinions of many out there who think he's 'mean' because of what was attributed him during the Clinton administration.
Tancredo or Romney could be okay but I do think both need to turn up the effort by an order of magnitude. Still - we're 18 months out and alot is going to happen before November 2008.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 19, 2007 3:06 PM
Cornelius:
" think that using Sunni tribesmen to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq is an effective means of exploiting divisions in the Muslim world...something Hugh has been advocating all along.
One has to keep in mind that Hugh has become such an outspoken opponent of the Iraqi war that - not unlike the Western Left (but for very different reasons) - he has a vested interest in seeing us fail there. "
Hugh advocated that while wanting the Americans out of Iraq while they support the militias fighting each other. US is supplying these groups with arms while they're there, where they will be no doubt at some point be attacked with their own weapons.
How can the US not fail in Iraq when it's goal is I believe, to create a free, stable democratic Iraq ? No matter what anyone supports it doesn't change the simple fact of reality that the goal is criminally naive.
Side note, anyone find it ironci that the US is now arming militias when it's stated objectives in Iraq was for the disarming of militias? Does that mean that the US is coming to terms with the fact that disarming militias there is impossible? If thats' the case, what is the point of screwing around there with kids lives? Screw the money, the war is costing what...4% of hte total GDP of the US per year.....US could have 10 of these wars without it hurting them financially......the equipment is always being replaced, but the men.....the maming, the soldiers dying for what? Ungreatful Iraqis ? Now that is cruel and pointless as Hugh says.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at June 19, 2007 3:12 PM
This is simply what happens when you stop using REAL experts with common sense, and use political correctness sensitivity brigades who reek of the absolute opposite of common sense.
Purge PC and you purge the problem.
Posted by: jcom972 at June 19, 2007 3:17 PM
Plaque
Why it is important now is that the existing candidates have already declared support for this war and have never questioned Bush's positions or rational for the war, or the currect objective.
What difference is there between Romney, McCain, Guiliani and Bush re: the war in Iraq?
The dems are already trying to turn the tables around and label Romney a flip flopper like was done to Kerry. They will attack, with success, anyone who backs away from support of the war. Identifying Islam as the primary enemy is so far off their radar that they cannot adjust their platforms now.
Agreed Tancredo cannot be ignored and I did post after the 2nd debate, that he would get my vote in the primary ( I happen to be in a first tier primary voting state so it may count for something). But I do not think he can withstand a Clinton army onslaught.
Thompson and Gingrich have not announced platforms so including the enemy is Islam ( or even some watered down variant) is not too late for them.
Even if Newt cannot be elected he has enough b*lls to raise this issue. At this point raising the issue so that it becomes part of the public debate would be good enough for me.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at June 19, 2007 3:25 PM
Papa Bear:
Richard's Perle's continued ignorance was proven recently in the 10 segment PBS special "America at Crossroads" several weeks ago. Not a single hint that he erred. No explanation offered why his project has failed. In fact, he stll thinks his plan was ,and still is, quite marvelous. He too, would no doubt, promote another 10,20,100 years more in Iraq to accomplish the goals of "project democracy". Not a word by him how that would still be accomplished after Iraq adopted sharia law in their constitution.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at June 19, 2007 3:42 PM
Cornelius says:
"One has to keep in mind that Hugh has become such an outspoken opponent of the Iraqi war that - not unlike the Western Left (but for very different reasons) - he has a vested interest in seeing us fail there."
Absolute rubbish. About as lazy an argument that can be made.
So that's it. Vested interest. No truth to the facts or conclusions recited in the essay?
What about me? Go ahead Corneilus, tell me what "vested interest" I have in being proven correct. I adopt Hugh's position 100%. You don't know me from Adam. But I'me sure you could make some excuse up. There are hundreds of readers who also agree with Hugh, do they too have vested interests?
If you disagree with the facts or conclusions in the essay that is one thing, a positive thing that will help all readers decide who is wrong and who is right. Please do give us the benefit of your insight into the world of jihad, and the history of Islam and exhibit your powers of persuasion for us all.
at June 19, 2007 3:59 PM
PapaBear:
You're close to convincing me that we should pull out. My remaining doubt is based on the suspicion that Iraq would devolve into another Somalia, or like the tribal areas of Pakistan, a place where nobody is in charge or accountable, and where all sorts of bad hats can maintain a base where they will be hard to find, and harder to terminate
So what?
The current civil war would become more substantial and no longer a proxy war.
It would be Iran,Hezbollah versus Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. Shia versus Sunni. Leave them to it.
Anything which soaks up Muslim funds, energy, arms. Our only real problem is preventing Israel and ourselves from being hit. Maybe just maybe, the Muslims can have a war among themselves and not be distracted by the West. We just stay quiet. It is like coming across 2 drunken street brawlers slugging it out, and you just hope they dont notice your presence, and if they do, you just try and get them to refocus on each other.
And it is great opportunity to make money by sellings conventional arms to both sides.
And make sure we dont give to to wooly minded liberals you will want to import fleeing refugees.
I dont care if these societies burn and go up in flames. Weakens Islam.
Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at June 19, 2007 4:20 PM
Now now LINow, no need to get your knickers in a twist on Iraq.
Now and then Hugh, who suffers from both the vapors and monomania (and probably gout as well) gets excited within his main metaphor which derives from his obsession with oil and his fights in the past over baby issues - and comes up with -
you guessed it - 'tar baby Iraq'. No one has seen this tar baby, but we are sure it exists, if only by virtue of the number of times that Hugh has referred to this poor creature over the years.
Because one values Hugh and his better insights,
one tends to overlook these peccadillos and waits for the moment of atavism or seizure to pass (lol).
Still a good post Hugh. Foggy Bottom is still unaware.
Posted by: dgene at June 19, 2007 4:31 PM
LEAVE IRAQ NOW: "What about me? Go ahead Corneilus, tell me what "vested interest" I have in being proven correct. I adopt Hugh's position 100%. You don't know me from Adam. But I'me sure you could make some excuse up."
RESPONSE: I have expressed my opinion on the Iraq war in great detail here on multiple occasions. I'm not about to regurgitate it for the likes of you.
I'll just say that while Hugh may or may not be right about the wisdom and utility of withdrawal, what we disagree on is the extent and severity of the repercussions.
As for your own opinion, why would you presume that it is of any consequence whatsoever to me?
Posted by: Cornelius at June 19, 2007 7:02 PM
I just listened to Washington Post correspondent Tom Ricks, author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, speaking to Terri Gross on NPR's Fresh Air.
From his book title, and the intro, things started in a promising way:
Terri Gross: From what I've been reading, even the Green Zone isn't safe anymore. Tom Ricks: I used to hate going into the Green Zone. Because it was just this sea of nonsense. People would sit there and blather and tell you about what's going on in Iraq. And I used to get kind of surly, which I don't want to do as a reporter. I remember saying to a General, "General, please go outside the Green Zone and walk a mile in civilian clothes. You won't survive." And he didn't believe me.[...] Terri Gross: One of the guiding principles for the military officials in Iraq now is that U.S. should leave Iraq more intelligently than it entered Iraq. So what kind of exit strategy is that translating into? [...] Tom Ricks: Their starting point is a real frustration with where the debate is in, in the U.S. at this point. A feeling that the debate on both sides of the equation over the war back here, has become quite sterile, and not really realistic. [...] But talk seriously, whether or not you support the war, about what the next step is. Looking at the reality on the ground in Iraq and the region.
Gee, it sounds like he gets it. Our choice is not limited to "staying the course" or "cutting and running". But then things start to slip...
Terri Gross: What is there in between the "All or Nothing" debate? Tom Ricks: [...] You cut deals with the Iraqis in such a way, that even Iraqis who are against the occupation, can somehow live with a smaller American presence. [...] And so you begin with that point, okay, maybe a small combat force, to guarantee the security of what is necessarily going to be a Shi'ite government in Baghdad.
Whaaa...? So now the U.S. is permanently going to inject itself into the 1000-year-old Sunni/Shi'ite death-feud, and protect the Shi'ites from the Sunnis? But he's getting excited now, he's on a roll:
Tom Ricks: Okay, well then they're going to need logistics forces. Supply forces. They're going to need a headquarters, command and control, and intelligence, communications. Okay, and then you're creating a training and advisory force. And you're going to need to be able to protect them in case they get into trouble, either with insurgents, or with security forces that mutiny against them. And so you start talking about maybe a force of 40,000 troops.
Having entertained, for two or three seconds, the concept of our hypothetical withdrawal from Iraq, this "expert" again has us mired there, more or less permanently, for the benefit of our "staunch allies", our "good friends", the Iraqis.
Terri Gross: [...] What would the consequences be of a complete U.S. troop pullout? What would that mean? Tom Ricks: There is a concensus that you probably would trigger a full-blown civil war in Iraq, which you don't have at this point ... You would have ethnic cleansing of a quite violent sort. They would probably clean all the Sunnis out of Baghdad, and result in three armed camps ... Terri Gross: You know, the attitude of some Americans is "Well, we gave the Iraqis their chance, you know, we liberated them, got rid of Saddam Hussein, and, you know, helped them write a constitution, but they just, have let everything fall apart. They're fighting among each other, their government is non-functional. At this point, it's their fault, and if they can't get it together, why should we suffer? So let's pull out all of our troops". Tom Ricks: Yeah, this is what I call "Freakin' Iraqis". You know, we did everything for them. And, what a bunch of ingrates. My feeling about that is a little bit like amputating a guy's legs at the knees, and then saying, "Look, we gave you a new pair of sneakers! Why aren't you running any faster?".
?
So Saddam was the Iraqis' calf muscles, and democracy was a dirty sneaker. No wait, the big toe was the Shi'ites, the middle toes were the Sunnis, and the little toe was the Kurds, and the shoe laces were the constitution, and ... oh, I give up.
But, here we go, Mr. Ricks is finally getting down to identifying the bad guy. And surprise! It is us:
Tom Ricks: We did alot to mess up Iraq, through inattention, through operating on false assumptions, and through kind of official optimism that pervaded both the Bush Administration and the U.S. military for several years ... Part of this new sobriety, I think, among American officials, is recognizing what a mess we created there. And so, I think, they're trying to express moral responsibility, that we have made allies of alot of Iraqis. And if you just walk out of there, they are likely to be slaughtered.
His whole argument, and that of many other "experts", is that these Iraqi people who are just like us, who share our values and our universal aspiration to peace and democracy and freedom, will begin slaughtering each other in even greater numbers than they are currently slaughtering each other while we are still there. We have to stay there, at whatever cost to ourselves, to protect these good upstanding people, who just want to drill holes into each others' eye sockets and tie ropes to each other and drag them behind cars and strike at each others' necks and throw each other off roofs.
It makes no sense. No sense whatsoever.
Mr. Ricks goes on about how if we pull out, our pulling out will cause the vast majority of Iraqis who are pro-American to become anti-American, and we'll see a large increase in the number of attacks on U.S. troops. So, we have to stay there, and our troops have to continue dying due to the Iraqis' anger that we are "occupying" their country, because if we pull out, that will really anger them and make them really want to kill us.
Gibberish. Pure gibberish.
They will never, ever, ever get it. These "experts" who are so vested in the current plan of the current Administration, so mired in their false assumptions about a society and a religion about which they know so little and presume so much, will never be able to change.
They call current policy a "fiasco", and ridicule the false assumptions under which that policy is made, and then wisely expound those same false assumptions and sagely proscribe more of the same policy.
They are so clever, these pundits; so lubricious, so self-confident. And they are so wrong.
These "leaders", and those whose writings are based on supporting our "leaders", must simply be made to step aside, to sit down, and let someone else have their turn. This is going nowhere.
[BTW, glad to see that yesterdays' typekey problems are worked out, and that I'm not yet permanently banned from posting at JW/DW.]
Posted by: special_guest at June 19, 2007 7:15 PM
Look I agree that Iraqi's are not worth even one more American life. And I wish there was one simple solution. I ain't convinced of any one way of thinking. Truth is .. Iraq will be a battlefield for some time. It's TOO valuable to everybody interested. And that's about a dozen point of views. What's best for US...what's best for Iran,Saudi,Syria,al-qeda,hezbollah,local tribes and on and on. We do need to figure out a way to step back and let them all fight it out.Evauntally there will be a point when the only people in Iraq will ALL be ones with there own murderous agendas. Would be nice to step back on let that happen....then just nuke the place....but that ain't gonna happen. It's a huge mess...and is the frontline battle for everybody. Everybody wants control over it....and those that can't will be damned if they would ever let anyone else have it. I really don't think there is an answer other than what causes us the least amount of pain and hurts various Islamist the most.
Posted by: screaming_eagle at June 19, 2007 8:05 PM
The piece linked to above by A_Plague_on_Both_Houses has some relevant and interesting matter.
From that piece:
It might be in our interest to install a free political system in a Middle Eastern country that we have defeated—if we have good reason to believe that we can create a permanently non-threatening regime and do so without sacrificing U.S. wealth or lives. And if we were to choose such a course, the precise character of the new regime would have to be decided by America. For instance, in contrast to Bush’s selfless approach to the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, in post-war Japan the United States did not give the Japanese people a free hand to draw up whatever constitution they wished, nor to bring to power whomever they liked. We set the terms and guided the creation of the new state, and in part because this is how Japan was reborn, it became an important friend to America. (Observe that the Japanese were receptive to new political ideals only after they were thoroughly defeated in war; Iraqis were never defeated and, on the contrary, were encouraged to believe that their tribalism and devotion to Islam were legitimate foundations for a new government.)
But we have no moral duty to embroil ourselves in selfless nation-building. In a war of retaliation against a present threat, we are morally entitled to crush an enemy regime because we are innocent victims defending our unconditional right to be free. Our government’s obligation is to protect the lives of Americans, not the welfare of people in the Middle East. The responsibility for the suffering or death of people in a defeated regime belongs to those who initiated force against us. If it proves to be in our national self-interest to withdraw immediately after victory, leaving the defeated inhabitants to sift through the rubble and rebuild on their own, then we should do exactly that. In doing so, we must instill in them the definite knowledge that, whatever new regime they adopt, it too will face devastation if it threatens America.
Emphasis mine.
Posted by: joeblough at June 19, 2007 8:54 PM
Cornelius asks me:
"As for your own opinion, why would you presume that it is of any consequence whatsoever to me?"
In fact, I presumed it may not. It is why my FULL statement was:
What about me? Go ahead Corneilus, tell me what "vested interest" I have in being proven correct. I adopt Hugh's position 100%. You don't know me from Adam. But I'me sure you could make some excuse up. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF READERS WHO ALSO AGREE WITH HUGH, DO THEY TOO HAVE VESTED INTERESTS?
at June 19, 2007 9:52 PM
Some wonderful posts here.
So many bullseyes.
"How can the US not fail in Iraq when it's goal is I believe, to create a free, stable democratic Iraq ? No matter what anyone supports it doesn't change the simple fact of reality that the goal is criminally naive"
That's how friggin' terrible this war truly has been.
Even if "Iraqi Freedom" - hey , guys in the Pentagon , stop thinking up friggin' cheesy names - succeeds then it still fails miserably.
That's right, if tomorrow peace came to the entire Iraqi nation , all the killing stopped , and evening parking fines were paid on time, then it would still be a colossal defeat for the Infidels for........here goes......... the Constitution is based on the Koran
Honestly, has there ever been a worse thought-out and executed war plan?
Really?
Posted by: ewha1 at June 20, 2007 12:35 AM
Wonderfully funny post , special guest
That's the only way to approach this monumental F up.
They said Spielberg's "1941" coast a million bucks a laugh.
Well, the Iraqi war is about 10 billion dollars a laugh.
But, hey, that's inflation for you.
Posted by: ewha1 at June 20, 2007 12:47 AM
Hugh, what's your assessment of the fallout in Iraq of a total withdrawal? Whilst your passionate and consistent position on this issue is an incredibly valuable one - and I agree that squandered resources ought to have been put to better use in propaganda and other efforts - any notion of such a radical change in approach ought to be cognisant of the after effects on the environment in which we will continue to fight. I am not sure if you have made a realistic assessment of the consequences since this may have major implications on how this war is fought. Easy for your many fans (of which I am one) to rally behind your outbursts. Where is the serious debate on this site?
at June 23, 2007 5:20 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)