Our Congress is still living in another reality. Our military commanders strike me as being on a leash.

In other words: we are in big trouble and the future is going to make today look like a tea party.

Posted by: Foehammer at September 10, 2007 5:12 PM

YAWN

Are people still talking about this??? At the end of the day, American troops cannot stay there forever. After a phase out or even total anihalation of AlQaeda, the clans will reform, regroup, make new alliances and continue to terrorize the people of their nation state (and the West).

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWN!!

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 5:13 PM

I agree with Hugh:

Why don't we GTFO of Iraq and focus our depleting resources on more advanced weaponry, securing our borders, and whatever deemed necessary to shift our foreign policy in a different direction.

As it stands now, we're bleeding our finances dry, losing American lives, and no LASTING good will come out of this war. We should have never intervened in the first place.

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 5:18 PM

Lets hope the policy of never identifying the source of Islamic terrorism doesnt have devastating consequences,It seems that is the only one that is firmly fixed.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 10, 2007 5:21 PM

Do what I've been saying to do for years now: smack the crap out of Iran to cripple its military so that it cannot take over Iraq without insane amounts of resources expended. Move all American and Coalition forces out of Iraqi urban areas. Guard the oil fields. Move most of our people home to get some well-deserved R&R. Build up our military over the next decade and be ready to react to the Islamic onslaught.

Shut our borders to Muslim immigrants and shut-off the flow of dirty Saudi oil money to the United States in every way, shape and form possible. No madrassas being built in NYC or anywhere else.

Elect a new President that actually understands the real threat -- do any of them?

Then start holding Congressional hearings on ISLAM and the real source of the terror after the 2008 elections, Islamic reformation, deportations and more.

Seriously, why the hell do more Americans need to die because of the continued stupidity and cowardice of our so-called leaders. Most of these Congressional leaders are sycophantic, cowardly opportunists and pseduo-intellectuals that tapped into Mommy & Daddy's money all the way to Washington, DC.

Am I completely over it all? You bet. Beyond it...

Posted by: Foehammer at September 10, 2007 5:26 PM

'In his professional judgement' what religion are we concerned about that will induce 'devastating' consequences?

The common denominator is not the 'people' it is the 'religion'.

'In his professional judgement' will Iraqi's ever be 'out of harm's way' with muslims?

Posted by: alaskan1000 at September 10, 2007 5:36 PM

In reviewing some notes I made in the early 1980s, our country’s infrastructure—roads, bridges, dams, sewers, subways, waterways, etc.—was considered to be in such poor shape (even way back then) that it was projected to cost $2.5 trillion (about $5 trillion in today’s prices) to make the necessary repairs and maintenance. More than two decades later, in 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our country’s infrastructure an overall grade of “D,” with not a single individual component (e.g., bridges) earning a grade above “C+.” Now, an important bridge—a part of the crown jewel of our national road network, the Interstate Highway System—has crumbled into the Mississippi River.

Front Page Magazine quote from today

What bothers me is that even if the military could wipe out the Al Qaeda over there, terrorists of all kinds could still infiltrate the southern border. Hence, even if they could destroy all the terrorist (which they can't), it wouldn't matter because the damn borders are so porous. They can maneuver on in from all different parts of the world anyway. Almost $1 TRILLION dollars spend and no LASTING good will come from Iraq; temporary maybe, but not lasting.

Meanwhile, major pieces of infrastructure are crumbling and the gov. can't afford to fix it.

Meanwhile, more & more people have to pay toll-roads, with the profits going to foreign companies, because the gov. must outsource to the private sector to keep them maintained.

Your tax dollars at work folks.

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 5:38 PM

"At the end of the day, American troops cannot stay there forever."
-Triumphant_Paladin

The key (sword) to solving the Gordian knot problem that for us is Iraq cannot be found within Iraq.

It requires thinking outside the box that we have drawn around Iraq.

Outside Iraq lies Saudi Arabia that supplies "foreign fighters" (along with Jordan and the "Palestinians")that are against us, Syria that affords these "foreign fighters" passage into Iraq, and Iran that stands ready to fill the vacuum in Iraq as soon as American (Coalition) forces leave.

Only by engaging these countries outside but abutting Iraq can the problem that is Iraq be solved.

Engage them? But how?

By seeing that these countries become more concerned with their own continued safety and existence than with meddling in Iraq.

I have not much hope for diplomatic solutions. Economic and military pressure--at much higher levels than dared to be imagined, at least publicly--is necessary.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 10, 2007 5:41 PM

Hugh always -- ALWAYS -- says it best.

Here's just one of his many superb posts on our idiotic venture in Iraq:

"One would love to know when Bush, when Rice, when all the rest of them first began to realize that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein meant, inevitably, that the Shi'a would take power, either over all of Iraq or over the southern part with the major oil resources and the only port. When did it occur to them that perhaps the sectarian split would not be overcome in the general "joy at liberation" (the joy in Baghdad will make the celebrations in Kabul seem like a "funeral procession" -- Bernard Lewis, 2002)? When did they figure out that the Shi'a resentment of the Sunnis, and Sunni contempt for the Shi'a, long preceded the regime of Saddam Hussein and that those who kept assuring them otherwise had their own fish to fry -- especially all those thoroughly-westernized Shi’a exiles who either ignored, or simply forgot, what the real Iraq, and the real Iraqis, were really like? And while Allawi, Chalabi, and Kanan Makiya were secular Shi'a, who themselves may have wanted to downplay, for the Americans, the real nature of Iraq. And, in their long Western exiles, where some of them became, centaur-like, half-Western men, they may have forgotten as well the craziness and violence of their own countrymen, with the centuries-old resentments reinforced by the last few decades of Sunni despotism, and with that widespread susceptibility to rumor and conspiracy theories which come naturally to those raised up in a belief-system that discourages free and skeptical inquiry. And even that survivor, the Baghdadian Vicar of Bray, the Sunni manipulator described formulaically and much too charitably as an "elder stateman," the famously louche Adnan Pachachi (a member of the Sunni elite and member of even a pre-1958 government), who claimed the other day, in an interview in the Corriere della Sera, that there is not, and never will be, a "civil war" because the Sunnis and the Shi'a have always gotten along famously, and in fact Shi'a were prominent in Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Now the Administration is said to be "worried" about "civil war." The thing to worry about, if you are not in the Administration, but simply an intelligent Infidel, is why anyone in the government of the United States expresses "worry" about sectarian violence between different sects of mujahedin, who otherwise would be devoting their energies to our destruction.

"And still worse, why do they "worry" about this sectarian violence "spreading" elsewhere in the Middle East and in Muslim lands further away?

"I understand why the Al-Saud family should be worried. I understand why the Ruler of Bahrain (oh, did he promote himself to king yet? I can't remember) should be worried. I understand why the government of Yemen should be worried. I understand why the Sunnis and Shi'a in Lebanon might be worried. I understand why some Shi'a and Sunnis in Pakistan and Afghanistan might be worried.

"But why, exactly -- please explain so I can get it through my thick skull -- should the Infidels in charge of the non-Muslim government of the non-Muslim (in everything which made America America) United States "worry" over the "threat" of Sunni-Shi'a civil war?"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010396.php

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 10, 2007 5:42 PM

As it stands now, we're bleeding our finances dry, losing American lives, and no LASTING good will come out of this war. We should have never intervened in the first place.

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 5:18 PM

Bingo! I second that! Removing Saddam was US charter, not 'rebuilding' Iraq. Frankly, we should have left Iraq right after Saddam was captured / hanged. After that, it is only a waste of American blood and money. Oh.. just leaving Iraq is not enough. Deporting illegal immigrants, monitoting / closing mosques, shutting down CAIR and US borders is a MUST. You see, there is a lot of house-cleaning to do as well.

Posted by: Alert at September 10, 2007 5:43 PM

In reviewing some notes I made in the early 1980s, our country’s infrastructure—roads, bridges, dams, sewers, subways, waterways, etc.—was considered to be in such poor shape (even way back then) that it was projected to cost $2.5 trillion (about $5 trillion in today’s prices) to make the necessary repairs and maintenance. More than two decades later, in 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our country’s infrastructure an overall grade of “D,” with not a single individual component (e.g., bridges) earning a grade above “C+.” Now, an important bridge—a part of the crown jewel of our national road network, the Interstate Highway System—has crumbled into the Mississippi River.

Front Page Magazine quote from today

What bothers me is that even if the military could wipe out the Al Qaeda over there, terrorists of all kinds could still infiltrate the southern border. Hence, even if they could destroy all the terrorist (which they can't), it wouldn't matter because the damn borders are so porous. They can maneuver on in from all different parts of the world anyway. Almost $1 TRILLION dollars spend and no LASTING good will come from Iraq; temporary maybe, but not lasting.

Meanwhile, major pieces of infrastructure are crumbling and the gov. can't afford to fix it.

Meanwhile, more & more people have to pay toll-roads, with the profits going to foreign companies, because the gov. must outsource to the private sector to keep them maintained.

Your tax dollars at work folks.

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 5:44 PM

Turning over Iraq to the most fanatical elements in the Muslim world - Iran and/or Al Qaeda - is certainly NOT the answer. I've been arguing the point all along.

Should we withdraw prematurely and the Iraq subsequently implodes, we can anticipate any or all of the following contingencies....

1) A flood - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of Iraqi refugees pouring into America as our guilt-ridden policy-makers try to save everyone associated with the US presence there (and of course their family members)

2) the re-emergence of a radical Kurdish entity in Iraq's north (ala 'Ansar al Islam') - backed by Iran, as a harbinger for the destruction of Iraqi Kurdistan's remarkable stability and moderation

3) the toppling of Jordan's King Abdullah and the establishment of a pro-Syrian, rejectionist state there

4) A significant loss of American prestige in the region....with repercussions such as perhaps the loss of US military facilities in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and elsewhere...and a reorientation of Saudi foreign policy - not to mention its oil commerce - away from America and towards China...as part of the Kingdom's search for a credible alternative to check Iranian regional hegemony

Posted by: Cornelius at September 10, 2007 5:46 PM

Oh yes...

5) The collapse of Coalition efforts in Afghanistan

Posted by: Cornelius at September 10, 2007 5:49 PM

I think the larger picture is being missed by our liberal element, as well as a few conservative folks.
#1
Unless we are willing to become 100% isolationists. Leaving Iraq now would be a huge mistake.
#2
If we are going to stay until the Iraqi's become an ally and a beacon of freedom in the Muslim world, we better be ready to stay a LONG time.

Option one is fine with me, but our allies, such as Israel, Europe and every other little country that depends on our military, financial and humanitarian aid would be left with a choice. China, Russia, or other Muslims countries to take over where we quit.

And it would send a terrible message about American resolve which would embolden our enemy's.
Those that say NO it wouldn't, look at history.

option #2, Not going to happen
Our worthless liberal element will not allow a total victory in Iraq, it doesn't go well with their political aspirations. They are perfectly happy about losing American lives as long as it results in a Democrat for President.

So where are we after Patreus's report?

Square one, Democrats want to surrender to Islam, Republicans want to fight. The Islamic cult, is a winner, as long as there is a democrat in congress they have a voice in our government.

Posted by: Robert at September 10, 2007 5:51 PM

I don't believe every arab, or every muslim is orthodox in their beliefs. In fact, it is more likely that the majority of Iraqis, though identifying themselves as believing muslims, do not live in accordance to sharia, and are rather secularized. Sort of like my fellow catholics here in Massachusetts. They go to church, at best, once a week, but that's it. No sacraments, frequent pre-marital sex and divorces, liberal views on abortion ect. Its just the way people are.

I believe that a democratic, pacified Iraq will, in the long term, enable these secularized Iraqis to obtain political power through voting (instead of the most brutal, ruthless Islamist taking power by fear) and therefore Iraq will be able to persecute global jihadists, rather than enable or support their supremicist aims.

This is more of a hope than a belief, actually.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at September 10, 2007 5:53 PM

We will have spent a TRILLION dollars at best to make Iran a major power.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 10, 2007 5:55 PM

I love Hugh, but we have to attack Iran before we get out of Iraq. I won't ever budge on that issue, and if we don't do it, all the lives spent up until this point in Afghanistan and Iraq were cheapened by our U.S. government's insanely dangerous inaction in the face of open hostility from a nation (Iran) that has been at war with us ever since 1979 and plans to become a worse threat if left alone.

The bastard mullahs were even behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed our Marines.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/902040.html

Posted by: Foehammer at September 10, 2007 5:55 PM

I think the larger picture is being missed by our liberal element, as well as a few conservative folks.
#1
Unless we are willing to become 100% isolationists. Leaving Iraq now would be a huge mistake.
#2
If we are going to stay until the Iraqi's become an ally and a beacon of freedom in the Muslim world, we better be ready to stay a LONG time.

Option one is fine with me, but our allies, such as Israel, Europe and every other little country that depends on our military, financial and humanitarian aid would be left with a choice. China, Russia, or other Muslims countries to take over where we quit.

And it would send a terrible message about American resolve which would embolden our enemy's.
Those that say NO it wouldn't, look at history.

option #2, Not going to happen
Our worthless liberal element will not allow a total victory in Iraq, it doesn't go well with their political aspirations. They are perfectly happy about losing American lives as long as it results in a Democrat for President.

So where are we after Patreus's report?

Square one, Democrats want to surrender to Islam, Republicans want to fight. The Islamic cult, is a winner, as long as there is a democrat in congress they have a voice in our government.

Posted by: Robert at September 10, 2007 5:56 PM

Cornelius,

America will not be able to prevent any of what you mentioned from happening unless you become occupiers. How exactly is it geographically possible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to wash up on American shores without your military presence??

The moslems use Taqiyya and deception to bleed sympathy and aid from your coffers; but rest assured, they will cut your neck at their earliest possible convenience.

Let the chips fall where they may. Let's pull out and focus on a different foreign policy.

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 5:58 PM

Turning over Iraq to the most fanatical elements in the Muslim world - Iran and/or Al Qaeda - is certainly NOT the answer.
--posted by Cornelius

I thought we were turning the country over to the duly elected representatives of the Iraqi people. Didn't elections happen?

Cornelius, should we give the Sunni and Shia another 1400 years to make nicey-nice and then leave?

20 Billion Dollars (yearly war expense) x 1400 =

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 10, 2007 6:01 PM

"Devastating" for whom? Not for us. For the Camp of Islam.

Google, among many such articles to be found above, "Victory Lies Shining Before Us." Or another dozen articles, and a thousand postings, making the same point, in ways that deliberately repeat, but also ring changes on -- I have to stay awake, after all -- the same theme.

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:02 PM

The biggest congressional hearing of probably the decade and the Federal government couldn’t even get the microphone to work.

Made it about half an hour into the hearing and had to go for a drive. Picked up another 25# of flour and a couple of hundred more 9mm rounds. Next off to Borders, where one of Robert’s books was relocated from a back shelf to the Islam section. It was therapeutic.

Posted by: pez at September 10, 2007 6:04 PM

Fitzgerald: Six questions about victory in Iraq
I have posed the questions so many times before.

But here they are again:

1) Should a "victory" in Iraq be defined as anything other than an outcome which will definitely leave the Camp of Islamic Jihad weakened?

2) If the answer to #1 is, as I hope it will be, "No," then why is it better to prevent the sectarian fissures within Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'a? These fissures are not limited to Iraq. They can be observed in a half-dozen countries, and what's more, they have the ability to set Sunni regimes against the Shi'a who stand to inherit The Land of the Two Rivers, that is, Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia, of course, was the center for 500 years of the Abbasid Caliphate. For the first hundred it was centered in Samarra, and for the remaining four hundred in Baghdad, madinat al-salaam, the fabled city of Haroun al-Rashid. It will also set those Sunni regimes against the Shi'a in their midst, or, to put it another way, they will not be willing to allow the "Persian" Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs," to inherit that part of the Arab land that is considered to be the place where its (much exaggerated) "glorious history" was made, and where its capital city, "glorious" Baghdad, was the center of that history.

3) If the answer to #1 is "No," and if it is clear that 80% of the world's Muslims are non-Arab, but have in various ways and to various degrees (with the Kurds and black Africans of Darfur, mass murder; with the Berbers, denial of their right to use the Berber language or preserve and disseminate the Berber culture) been the victims of Arab cultural and linguistic and economic and political imperialism, why does it not make sense to encourage the Kurds to obtain independence? For this will raise, in the minds of many non-Arab Muslims, the very thought that it might be possible to throw off the Arab yoke. And this in turn is likely to cause all kinds of dissension within the Camp of Islam, even possibly driving some non-Arab Muslims, whose ethnicity works against rather than reinforces their Islam, to leave Islam altogether.

4) If the answer to #1 is "No" (as I hope it still is), then do we not wish that the co-religionists of Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq will send aid from outside? Such aid is likely to use up their men, their money, their materiel, their attention, and especially to force the two most sinister and powerful Islamic states, Iran and Saudi Arabia, for reasons of prestige, to necessarily ensure that "their side" does not lose. And since in Islam (as the Americans refuse so far to recognize) one does not compromise but ends either as Victor or Vanquished, such a low-level war is liable to go on forever.

5) There is so much more that might be said, including my oft-repeated argument that Turkey can be made to accept an independent Kurdistan, with American guarantees that such a state will not make territorial demands on Turkey, but will direct its efforts to Iran and Syria. And in the case of Iran, such a Kurdish state can have effects not only in the Kurdish areas of Iran, but among its other non-Persian minorities. One wishes, for example, for continued unrest among the Arabs in Khuzistan, and Iranian repression, and then renewed unrest, just as one hopes that the Shi'a in the oil-bearing Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia will become more and more disgruntled, and that the Shi'a in Bahrain, to which an Iranian official has just renewed Iran's longstanding claim (sending shudders down Arab spines), will behave in similar fashion.

6) If you answered "No" to #1, but find fault with my #2-#5, then tell us please how the Bush strategy, the one to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" and to sacrifice Americans, and American money, to prevent those sectarian and ethnic fissures from widening, and doing everything possible to tamp them down, will lead to a good result, to that "victory" I defined in #1 above.

I'll wait right here. Tell me. Tell all of us.

Be detailed. No vagueness, no "we just can't do this" or "it wouldn't be right to do that." Go ahead.

[Posted by Hugh at August 28, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:05 PM

Robert (I don't mean Robert Spencer, I mean the commenter on this thread called "Robert") -- your choice of name might mislead the occasional new visitor into thinking your comments are made by Robert Spencer...maybe if you added the initial of your last name, to distinguish yourself more clearly, that would help?...Also, people on these threads often address "Robert" and mean Robert Spencer, so it could become a little confusing, if you see what I mean.

Posted by: traeh at September 10, 2007 6:06 PM

Fitzgerald: Why the stated goals for "victory in Iraq" make no sense
The stated goals for "victory in Iraq" make no sense. Should the goal of Americans and other Infidels be to create a functioning state (with cigars passed around for the final birth of a happy, healthy, baby boy, after such a difficult pregnancy)? In any case this is impossible, with Allawi or Jaafari or Maliki or anyone at all, given that Islam itself is what prevents compromises and encourages continued aggression between Sunni and Shi'a. Both have taken from Islam the lesson that there can only be, after any conflict, only two possible conditions: that of Victor and that of Vanquished.

"Victory in Iraq" properly defined means a situation that justifies the expenditure of some $880 billion dollars (including in that figure the lifetime cost of care for the wounded veterans, and other expenses not yet factored in even by those, such as General MacCaffrey, who are critics of the war but inattentive to the real cost). That is more than the cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought, in 2007 dollars. It must also justify the deaths of 3,700 soldiers and the severe wounding of 25,000. Bush's notion that the outcome of a unified Iraq is a better one for the United States than one in which Sunnis and Shi'a, at one level or another, continue to fight, is unfounded. Who knows? Who can predict exactly how they will or will not handle one another once the Americans leave? What's more, who can say what will happen when co-religionists on both sides line up behind their fellows in Iraq? That means primarily Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Sunnis cheerfully waved off by the Alawite rulers of Syria, on the Sunni side, and on the Shi'a side, the grim Islamic Republic of Iran, with its Al Quds Revolutionary Guards, and of course its handmaidens in Hizballah, whom all kinds of sensible people in Lebanon would love to see stream off as volunteers, screaming their devotion to Allah, to Iraq to defend their own faith from those terrible Sunnis.

And in the same way, would not greater Kurdish autonomy, or ideally a Kurdish state, be a threat to Iran? For it would hearten not only Kurds in Iranian-held parts of Kurdistan, but others in the area -- Arabs in Khuzistan, Baluchis to the east, Azeris in the north -- to bethink themselves, to wonder if they too, the non-Persians who make up half the population of present-day Iran, must forever be subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran. And another potential threat is to Syria. As for Turkey, the Americans could make clear that Turkey is no longer regarded as an indispensable ally, or even conceivably a reliable member of NATO, to the extent that it "returns to Islam" (as it is, steadily, day by day, under the guiding hand of Erdogan and many little erdogans), but that, in any case, the Americans will act as guarantors to insure that whatever pressures from this Kurdish state are made on Iran, or Syria, no such pressure will be put on Turkey, for the Americans, as the sole suppliers of military aid to Kurdistan, can guarantee their cooperation. And furthermore, it can hardly have gone unnoticed that economic cooperation between Turkey and Kurdistan is already in the works, and that the Turkish government might take an entirely different view of an independent Kurdistan, as not increasing outside pressure on it, but serving to decrease it -- for if Kurds in Turkey feel that they need an outlet for political expression other than the Turkish state, they are now welcome to move to an independent Kurdistan, and for all we know, some might take up the offer. And I have not even reached here the emulative effect the spectacle of one non-Arab Muslim people, the Kurds, throwing off the Arab yoke, would have on other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers.

Finally, along with the sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) division inside and outside Iraq, there are possible further unsettlements and sectarian strife in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia (the oil-bearing Eastern Province), in Lebanon, in Bahrain, even in Yemen. Instead of being welcomed -- since when does one attempt to prevent division and demoralization in the camp of one's enemies? -- these are actively being deplored, in warnings from the Great and Good, that an American withdrawal will bring, could bring, might bring, that deplorable thing called "chaos" to the Middle East. Nonsense. Not "chaos" -- not with those kinds of despotisms willing to use their kind of force with their kind of secret police. Not chaos, really, but perhaps a using up of men, money, and materiel, and attention -- but this time they would all bear the initial adjective "Muslim" rather than "American," and that is a highly desirable change.

[Posted by Hugh at August 28, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:07 PM

WTH??? Sorry about the dual post... I have learned from my mistakes and I am sorry for the harm it caused.
I will be checking into rehab in the morning and I've found Jesus....
I hope I can be forgiven for my misdeed.

Does that about sum up a celebrity apology?

LOL

Posted by: Robert at September 10, 2007 6:08 PM

August 9, 2007
Fitzgerald: This war is too important to be left to mere generals

"The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq." -- from this article

The whole worshipful cult of Petraeus, as the Great Uniformed Hope, is utterly misplaced. It is he who seems to take seriously, or perhaps even originated, the utterly unhelpful idea that "in general, insurgencies last ten years." This is a pointless, even silly, notion, for it ignores the nature of insurgencies. When they are directed at, say, a colonial power (the MauMau), or against the local government because of its perceived injustice (the Greek Communists), and there are ways to satisfy demands at the same time that military defeat is inflicted, then insurgencies may last ten years. Jomo Kenyatta came to power -- in other words, the English gave up. In Greece there was, presumably, some attention to winning the hearts and minds of the impoverished who might be most vulnerable to Communist propaganda. But in Iraq there is not one insurgency, but many, and while they are all conducted by various groups of Muslims against each other, they are also -- to varying degrees depending only on what temporary use they may have for the Infidel Americans -- all hostile, permanently hostile (temporary smiles and wiles are transparent, or should be) to the Infidels.

What would you think of me if I were to write an article, or promote a doctrine, in which it was maintained that "in general, civil wars last 6.7 years"? A pointless, silly notion, isn't it? You would make fun of me for such a thing. You would say, that such a statistic has no ability to help us in a particular situation. Why then do we applaud Petraeus, whose previous term as a supposedly successful "trainer" of Iraqi forces did not train up a great many loyal, true-blue Iraqis? Nor did the area he supposedly pacified remain pacified.

Of course he is of thoughtful mien. Of course he is very brave, and not only brave but mediagenic. But so what? Someone who starts using the pronoun "we" to include Americans and Iraqis as one group, with identical interests is not someone whose thoughtful demeanor and bravery (shot in the stomach in an accident during training, insisting on going right back to active duty as soon as he could, etc.) should cause us, however desperate we are for a hero on a horse, some General Beranger, to put Petraeus on a pedestal or pediment. Infidels and Muslims do not have, anywhere, identical interests. Furthermore, he has continued to think that "hearts and minds" matter.

Furthermore, he has not dropped any hints that he understands that the larger Jihad will not be affected in the slightest by bringing some kind of temporary harmony to Iraq. The larger Jihad is the one which consists of all the local Jihads (which cannot be reduced to merely "local" and "non-Islamic promptings, as either he, or possibly Kilcullen, or possibly both, seem to think). It is the one that relies mainly on the Money Weapon, and campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, and whose theatre is now Western Europe.

It would be far better to let Iraq be a source of constant internal strife within the Camp of Islam and Jihad. But how can a general possibly turn himself into a real strategist, a Halford Mackinder, who sees just how trivial Iraq is in the larger scheme of things? His entire effort is spent in fulfilling this or that task. He does not see beyond that hideously difficult task to ponder why the task itself, and its fulfillment, makes no larger strategic sense. Iraq is trivial except as a place where American lives, and money, and war materiel, have been and are being squandered for all the wrong reasons. They are being squandered for a policy based on a lack of understanding of the forces at play in Iraq and potentially outside Iraq. Most of all, there is a lack of understanding by most of those who love Bush and by most of those who hate him, of Islam: its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, that guarantee that there will never be a settlement between Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq that will look anything like what Infidels would think is possible. That is, there will never be a settlement that people of reason might arrive at -- people who are used to compromise and who are not schooled up in a victor/vanquished view of the universe as are Muslims, with the victors being the Believers, and the vanquished being the Infidels. That attitude carries over to the Sunni view of Shi'a and, to some extent, vice-versa.

It won't happen in Iraq. And if it did, it would be of no help in weakening the Camp of Jihad.

Does Petraeus even think in such terms? Has he realized what the demographic conquest of Western Europe would mean -- first for a change in foreign policy, then to the weaponry of NATO, and then to the very nature of the societies that form, along with North America, the heart of the West?

Does he? Or is he merely a general? Because this war is too important to be left to mere generals. Even quiet, mediagenic generals such as David Petraeus.

[Posted by Hugh at August 9, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:09 PM

option #2, Not going to happen
Our worthless liberal element will not allow a total victory in Iraq
--posted by Robert

total victory in Iraq?????

WTF would that be?

Hmmmmm.....let's see. Option 1)The Sunni and Shia and the Kurds all get together, sit down, make up, and henceforth respect the voice of democracy????? They haven't done that yet after four years. Matter of fact, they haven't done that in 1400 years. So how much longer would you battle on to achieve that "Kumbaya" moment when everyone hugs each other and these muhammadans begin to behave like ordinary moms and dads who just want to live peacefully, in a tolerant, non-sectarian state?

Or do you promote option 2) "Just drop the bomb and kill all of them???"

Assuming you have an I.Q. larger than my shoe size, you probably realize that these two options are unrealistic.

Do you have a third?

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 10, 2007 6:11 PM

Fitzgerald: The Iraqi policy is sure to fail
A fledgling group of Sunni and Shiite religious leaders met for the first time in Baghdad last week to condemn sectarian violence in their country, a move US military officials framed as a first of its kind and a small step toward broader political reconciliation. -- from this article
Why are they even attempting this? Not only is it likely to be fail, but it is part of a policy that is likely to fail. That policy involves the attempt to make Iraq into a unified state, with a civic-minded and informed and intelligent citizenry, full of the hardworking and the prosperous. Iraq will therefore offer Sunni Arab states a model of how to be, and everyone will be happy. For the first time in 1350 years, Muslims will take no interest in much of what Islam teaches, though as never before in history, despite their clear military inferiority to Infidels, Muslims are now capable of conducting the Jihad to spread Islam until it dominates and Muslims rule, in large parts of the non-Islamic historic West, through other non-military means, through utilization of the Money Weapon, well-financed and carefully-targeted Campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

Meanwhile, the great cost continues to mount. It begins with the $880 billion spent in Iraq. That is more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought. But the cost also includes loss of life and of limb that might be acceptable even at far higher levels, in a war such as World War II, a war that made sense, but enrages because the war in Iraq, for the goals stated, not only does not enhance American security and that of its true allies, but worse, it actually requires the American soldiers to work to attain goals that, were they to be achieved (they won't be), would hinder rather than promote American security.

The exploitation of the sectarian and ethnic fissures within Iraq, if not opposed by the Americans, would inevitably lead to further divisions and demoralization within the Camp of Islam, and that, in turn, can only help the Americans and other Infidels in their own war of self-defense -- not a "war against terror" -- against the Jihad that is a permanent feature, not a temporary one (there is no "after Jihad," pace Noah Feldman, and Gilles Kepel, both of them as misguided guides to Islam as can be imagined), of Islam.

What is described in the article above shows the failure by those in Iraq to think beyond Iraq, to think of Iraq only as one theatre in the war of self-defense against the Jihad. The United States has no stake in bringing together Sunni and Shi'a. The Bush Administration, unable to recognize its mistakes about Islam and about Iraq, appears determined to continue to invest more and more, of money and materiel and men's lives -- to pursue a wrong course. In this respect it reminds one of the stubborn, crazed policy pursued during the hideous trench warfare of World War I, for no reasons that made sense, but because, once the thing started, no one could figure out how to stop it.

The generals who have opposed the war for the right reasons (not the zinni-ish line of appeasement, but because the war aims in Iraq make no real sense, the "mission" cannot be articulated by Bush because even to try to do so would show up how misguided the whole thing is) should speak up. And those who are with tunnel vision thinking only of the "job we have to do" right here in Baghdad are not serving the country well.

As for those who say things like "on average, insurgencies last about ten years," to them one can only reply: what would you think of someone who self-assuredly proclaimed that "on average, American wars last an average of 2.1 years" or "on average, wars around the world since 1500 have lasted about 13.16 years" or "on average, civil wars last about 3.7 years"?

You would see right away how vacuous and jejune are such remarks. But for some reason, those "counterinsurgency experts" who make such statements, and then as well think they are little-lawrence-of-arabias with their knowledge of the "Sunni tribes" and their ability to really get to know those sheikhs because they are aware of how to sit, and which hand to use, and what formulae to utter, and how to listen patiently as the local Arab, continue to utter them. Yet that local Arab knows exactly how to manipulate the American army officer who is under the impression that it is he, the American, who is doing the manipulating. He presents his wish-list for still more money, still more of those nice advanced American weapons and, oh yes, some more raids by American soldiers on that particular sheikh's particular enemies, whether or not they belong to Al Qaeda, which is not, pace Patraeus and Bush, the only problem -- for there are a dozen different, mutually hostile, constantly shifting in their allegiances groups in Iraq, but all of them, in the end, consist of Muslims, and therefore none of them, in end, can conceivably be won over, not their hearts, and not their minds, to be real, as opposed to temporary and feigned, friends of American Infidels.

The article above makes one furious, and sad. Furious at the stupidity. Sad for the troops, sad for the soldiers being asked to be there, fighting for something, trying to do something in Iraq, that makes no sense -- none.

[Posted by Hugh at June 25, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:18 PM

traeh, I never really thought about that, Good point. I'll send the site admin an email. or re-register.

Sorry about the confusion, please see my last post and apply that apology.....

Posted by: Robert at September 10, 2007 6:18 PM

July 15, 2007
Fitzgerald: The dismaying General Petraeus

In an interview published in the Christian Science Monitor dated July 13, General Petraeus declares:

"If we pull out there will be greatly increased sectarian violence, humanitarian concerns.... You don't know what could happen in terms of dangerous conflicts, what could happen along the Kurdish/Shiite/Sunni fault lines, or how [Iraq's] neighbors will react."

What is wrong, from the point of view of the American and larger Infidel interests that are now engaged in a largely-unrecognized war without end, with "increased sectarian violence" in Iraq? What is wrong "in terms of…what could happen along the Kurdish/Shiite/Sunni fault line"? Why should it matter? Would we not find that the Camp of Islam would be weakened if Iraq dissolves into something like its original constituent parts, those three former Ottoman vilayets -- Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra (more picturesquely, Bassorah) -- roughly corresponding to the Kurdish, Shi'a, and Sunni areas at present, with the Christians possibly to find an American-sponsored haven in the existing Assyrian villages in the north in what would then be a completely autonomous, possibly independent, Kurdistan?

Sunnis inside and outside Iraq refuse to acquiesce in the new arrangement. They cannot conceivably accept the idea of permanent Shi'a dominance of fabled Baghdad, a place that is so important to their history-haunted view. Their view of the world depends so much on what happened, or rather what they think happened, more than a millennium ago. In that quasi-real quasi-mythological past, Baghdad was the first city of Islam for four hundred years (and the Abbasid Caliphate of Iraq, its capital first in Samarra and then in Baghdad, the most important in Arab history). It is impossible for the Sunnis to see the Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs" whom many Sunnis have always regarded as heretics, quasi-Muslims, in control in Baghdad. For many in Al Qaeda in Iraq, and as Al-Zarqawi clearly believed, the Shi'a are worse than regular Infidels because they are more treacherous.

And how can the Shi'a, on the receiving end everywhere of Sunni aggression, not least in modern Iraq, ever give up what they have gained? After all, when the Americans were inveigled into removing Saddam Hussein, it was Shi'a in exile who did the inveigling. Some of them were no doubt like Al-Maliki, deliberately deceiving the Americans about their intentions, as someone who knew Al-Maliki in Syrian exile said. Others, such as Kanan Makiya, no doubt were naïve. They were naive about the nature of their own countrymen and country, because in their Western and secularized and cossetted world they had forgotten what Islam, what societies and peoples suffused with Islam, are like. They actually did think there was hope for Iraq under benevolent American tutelage and sway.

It can't happen. And General Petraeus should be more than a mere "counter-insurgency expert." He should look outside the narrow confines of Anbar Province, with those tribes that are for turning, and outside Baghdad and the damned "surge," and think clearly. Bush doesn't. Rice doesn't. No one at the civilian top is doing so, which means that the generals must do so. They must begin to analyze and then question and then see right through the damn "mission" -- and realize that the best thing he can do, the best way to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad, is to work for the immediate withdrawal ("immediate" will take months, in any case) of American forces, so that exactly those things he now deplores, because he now does not understand their value, will come to pass. But this requires General Petraeus to be more than he has so far been. He needs to remain unaffected by this or that local Iraqi, of the winning Gunga-Din variety, and think more coldly about this war. It is not a "long war," not a "war that will last several generations." Rather, it is a war that will last as long as Islam exists, with that central duty of Jihad, Jihad to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere and everywhere Muslims rule. This duty does not disappear, but sometimes subsides when Muslims are too weak. It always remains ready to be implemented, in whatever way is possible, at any time.

At the moment Muslim states cannot engage in outright warfare; they are too weak. The chosen and effective instruments of Jihad, along with the greatly-exaggerated "terrorism" that Bush seems to regard as the Enemy (the "war on terrorism"), are the Money Weapon (which pays for mosques, madrasas, influence of all kinds), campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. When there are not twenty million Muslims in Europe, but fifty million, or one hundred million, how easily will the people of Western Europe make their own domestic and foreign policies without fear of Muslim reaction? How easily do they do it even now? How easily will they resist Muslim demands for changes in their own legal and political institutions, and social arrangements? How easily do they do it even now? Nothing good can possibly happen if the peoples of Europe continue to admit Muslims, and continue to support, through Infidel-paid welfare systems, large Muslim families. Nothing good can come of allowing the Saudis and other rich Arabs to pour money in to pay for an ever-expanding number of giant mosques and madrasas -- and to subvert, through all kinds of bribery, various influential Westerners. That includes those who are supposed to study and instruct us about the nature of Islam.

These are the kind of things that General Petraeus may not realize in the hectic vacancy of daily trying to create an alliance here, a compromise there. Those temporary compromises and local victories mean, in the end, very little. For if they were to help fulfill the "mission," when that "mission" makes no sense, makes the opposite of sense, they would merely harm American interests by helping the Camp of Islam to avoid the kind of sectarian and ethnic strife that one should see not as damaging but as promoting the cause of the Infidels. When General Petraeus expresses worry about that "Sunni/Shia/Kurd fault line" and about what Iraq's "neighbors" may do, he simply alerts us to his failure to grasp the larger picture. And he is hardly alone. But he has gotten such a press, such a buildup, and is clearly more intelligent than Bush -- so this, yet one more sign of the limits of his understanding and therefore of his usefulness in the war of self-defense against the Jihad, dismays.

[Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:19 PM

“In my professional judgment…”

I’ve never had much luck with two categories of people:

1. Businessmen who refer to you as ‘buddy’.
2. Professional men who refer to themselves as ‘professional’.

Posted by: pez at September 10, 2007 6:21 PM

Fitzgerald: Maliki in the Wall Street Journal
Though supposedly a translation from al-Maliki's Arabic, there is nothing about this article -- nothing at all - that reminds one of Arabic style, in thought or language. How stupid do the American propagandists who concocted this kind of thing think we are? And are the grotesque and obvious echoes of Lincoln meant to fool us?

This is of a piece with the efforts of Condoleeza Rice and George Bush to convince us that the new "Iraqi Constitution" --the one that tells us that no law can stand that violates Islam, and which makes the highest law of the land not that same Constitution, but rather the Shari'a, as embodying in law the meaning of Qur'an and Sunnah -- was just like the American Constitution, and the framers of that Constitution (thrusting young academic Noah Feldman flauntingly among them) just like the Framers in Philadelphia.

No analogy between the greatest figures in American or Western political history has been too grotesque for this desperate Administration. It appears to be unable to think clearly, because it refuses to go back and study Islam, and from that study to proceed to study the real Iraq, the Iraq whose history has been one, as Elie Kedourie has noted, of uninterrupted violence and aggression, and palace coups and plots.

The Shia now run Iraq. Or rather, they run Baghdad, they run Basra, they run the entire south. They don't need Anbar Province. They don't need the Sunnis. They have been steadily emptying Baghdad of Sunnis -- the Sunni Arabs who constituted at least one-third of the population of Baghdad just four years ago are down to 15%, and falling every day. Baghdad, the most important center of High Islamic Civilization, the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate for 400 years, from roughly 850-1250 (for the first 100 years the capital was in Samarra, 60 miles to the north on the Tigris, with its celebrated, guggenheimish Mawliye), is now, and forever will be, Shi'a-controlled. This is something that the Sunnis will not "get over" -- as Rice famously said about the enmity between Sunnis and Shi'a: "they'll just have to overcome it." This is a remark similar to that sometimes made, in ignorant exasperation, about that Arab-Israeli matter. Yet that too is not, I'm afraid, a question of "getting over it," for the Arabs will never ever "get over it." They, can, however, be held in check. That is a different thing. They can be held in check while the Infidel world, far beyond little Israel, and for its own purposes, works steadily to chip away at the economic and military power of Islam.

This article by Maliki is so comical a production that one should not be angry, but rather pleased, that it has been put up. It invites ridicule. And it will get it.

And amid that ridicule, do not forget: again and again Maliki has shown an indifference to American desires. He was preparing some months ago to offer amnesty to those “insurgents” who had killed "only" American soldiers, until an outcry in this country forced the Bush Administration to tell him he couldn’t do it. He expects the Americans to fight and die for his regime, a regime like the previous one prepared to soak the Americans for all they are worth, all the billions they can provide. And how many former high Iraqi officials siphoned off how many billions, paid for by American taxpayers, most of whom will never know the high life now to be enjoyed for the rest of their lives by those “Iraqi” patriots who made out like gangbusters on American aid, and are now living it up outside Iraq, or in Europe, possibly attending the same defiles on the Avenue Montaigne as Suha Arafat?

Maliki is not, and cannot be, a “friend of America.” He is willing to endure the American presence only so long as it strengthens him, and weakens the Sunni insurgents. And the Sunnis, in turn, or those not in the immediate “insurgency,” may now want the Americans to stay for the same reasons – in order to protect them from the full force of the Shi’a. That’s it. The Administration refuses to understand this, and keeps making policy based on hope, and on all the Unrepresentative Men (Chalabi, Allawi, Makiya, and the tiny group of semi-decent mid-level former Iraqi officers who have unduly impressed American officers, and thus lead them to all kinds of rosy misconceptions and hopes, but are in fact the rare exceptions, not the rule) that were in exile, or have tried with this or that group of soldiers or policemento do the impossible in Iraq, which is to make them drop their sectarian and ethnic and even tribal allegiances. Simply cannot be done.

Why is this hard to understand? What is so complicated about it?

[Posted by Hugh at June 14, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:25 PM

May 29, 2007

Fitzgerald: The Iran/Iraq War, Sunni/Shi'a hostility, and D'Souza

The war between Iran and Iraq, of course, could not have been openly presented by Saddam Hussein as a Sunni-Shi'a war, for obvious reasons. But that is not the same thing as saying that it had nothing to do with the initial fear and hatred, felt by those who ran the Sunni Arab despotism (disguised behind "Ba'athism") of Saddam Hussein for the mad-dog Shi'a, as they saw it, of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In that war, Saddam Hussein referred to battles from early Islam between Arabs and Persians, and played up -- as other Sunnis have more recently done -- the "Persian" business. Some, such as Al-Zarqawi, and his successors, have reinforced the resentment of Sunnis at losing control of Iraq to the Shi'a by describing those Shi'a, inaccurately, as "Persians," or mere collaborators of the "Persians."

One of Bernard Lewis's most useful books is The Multiple Identities of the Middle East. One is not only a Shi'a Muslim or a Sunni Muslim. One can be more than one thing. One can be an Arab and a Muslim. One can be an Arab and a Sunni Muslim. One can be an Arab and a Shi'a Muslim. One can be a Berber, and a Muslim. One can be a Kurd, and a Muslim. In the case of Arabs, so strong is the identification of Islam and "Uruba" or Arabness, that even among some of the Christian Arabs (above all among those we have been carefully taught to call "Palestinians") the identification with Islam is intertwined with "Arabness," and a need to be able to identify with permanently threatening Muslim Arabs (as a way to fit in, as a way to win them over). One thus finds the phenomenon of the "islamochristian," which is much less common among more numerous, self-conscious, and historically less cowed communities, such as the Maronites of Lebanon, or even the Copts, especially the Copts once they leave Egypt and can think, feel, speak freely about Islam.

All this escapes Dinesh D'Souza. He's too busy. So many books to sell, so many CDs to flog. To flog, flog, flog. Step right up. Get your latest Dinesh D'Souza here. Just for today, at No Extra Cost, a Guide to Absolutely Everything.

Who is most likely to shout that there never has been a Sunni-Shi'a divide, and that therefore whatever trouble there is in Iraq of what is demurely described as "of a sectarian nature" (you know: those bombs that blow the gold-tumanned roof off of venerable Shi'a mosques, those revenge drillings into live flesh by the Shi'a militias in return) is the responsibility of the Bad Old Infidels, the Bad Americans?

One group consists of those who will find a way to blame America for the inability of the people in Iraq to engage in sensible political compromise, or to refrain from violence as their main means for obtaining their goals. This group cannot see the world through other than Muslim lenses, with the inculcated violence and aggression that comes with those lenses. They understand that there are only two categories -- the Victors and the Vanquished -- which is exactly what Islam teaches them as the right way to think of Believers and Infidels. This lesson is not lost on them when they begin to think about other kinds of enemies.

The second group, of course, consists of the Bush loyalists, the people who thought that it made sense to remain in Iraq for Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations purposes. But no one, even those of us who believed the Administration's information about WMDs, should have thought it wise for the Americans to remain in Iraq beyond early 2004. Why then? Why not, say, November 2003? Well, because it was important to be assured both that the country had been scoured for WMDs, and that Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and the face cards in that famous pack used by the Americans in their imaginative game of Fifty-Two Pickup, were either killed or captured. But that was it.

The removal of the regime set in motion what was inevitable: the transfer of power to the Shi'a and the loss of power by the Sunnis. The Sunnis do not and cannot, inside or outside Iraq, accept this loss. They are unwilling to acquiesce in the obvious fact that the Shi'a of Iraq have won and have no intention of giving up power. What can the Sunnis do? The Shi'a don't need Anbar Province, and they have been quite able to empty Baghdad of many of its Sunnis. They are quite prepared, if need be, to continue that particular operation until the madinat al-salaam, the fabled first city of Islam, is almost entirely in Shi'a hands.

But Bush loyalists cannot admit that. They cannot admit that history demonstrates the depth and duration of Sunni-Shi'a hostilities goes far beyond Saddam Hussein's mistreatment of the Shi'a. They cannot accept that these hostilities go far beyond the history of modern Iraq, or even the history only of Iraq, but can be found wherever Sunnis and Shi'a are mixed together in sufficient numbers for the latter to be noticed and discriminated against, or attacked, or persecuted.

They ignored history, and now they have a stake in rewriting history, because of what they should have known, but did not bother to find out. And were any of the smiling westernized secularized Shi'a in exile going to inform them about the likelihood of a Shi'a takeover, and a Sunni refusal to acquiesce? This history continues to be ignored in presentations by Bush, by Cheney, by Rice, and by all those so-called "conservative" commentators whose reputations should suffer for their blind and late-in-the-day seeing of the light, where they do, or must pretend to, about Iraq.

Dinesh D'Souza apparently thinks that because many of the conscripts in Iraq's army were Shi'a, then Saddam Hussein could not have been prompted to declare war against Iran as a Shi'a state. But that is exactly why he declared war (see the "Encyclopedia Britannica" entry posted by Robert Spencer here). He understood that the secular Shah did not appeal to the devout Shi'a of Iraq, and that whatever his differences with Iran under Shah Reza Pahlevi, the Shah's regime was not for Saddam Hussein life-threatening.

But Khomeini, the militant Shi'a cleric, was a different matter. He had been kicked out of his exile in Iraq, was stupidly offered asylum by the French, and from his perch at Neauphle-le-chateau launched the revolution against the Shah. Had the French government been better informed, it would have cooperated with agents of Savak and had Khomeini done away with while he was in France.

It was because of Khomeini and his revolution that Saddam Hussein attacked Iran -- or rather, attacked the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran which, he understood, was a mortal threat to him because of its dangerous appeal to the formerly cowed ("quiescent") Shi'a of Iraq.

Dinesh D'Souza appears to believe that the army of Iraq was "60% Shi'a." That is, he thinks the army of Iraq reflected exactly the percentages in the general population. But of course the army was Sunni-officered, strictly Sunni-controlled. He, Dinesh D'Souza, appears not to realize how police states can stay afloat, when they set their diabolical minds to it. What percentage of the officer corps in the Syrian army, for example, in a country where only 12% of the population is Alawite but the country is run of, by, and for Alawites, does he think is Alawite? 12% exactly? Or 50%? Or 80%?

What naivete. Does he really think that the Sunni despots who have run Iraq ever since the British left, even though they were always a distinct minority (and have become more so over time), would do so without total control of the army? Can he not imagine how those Shi'a conscripts would have been pushed forward, fed whatever anti-"Persian" propaganda could be fed them, and then at the first sign of any recalcitrance, executed on the spot? He is lacking in the imaginative faculty.

In the imaginative faculty. In general knowledge. In specific knowledge about Islam, a subject he presumes to know enough to write a book about. The Hoover Institution should not be mocked. It no doubt is mortified that he is still there, and no doubt looking forward to getting rid of him at the earliest opportunity. He will find some other place to exploit for his own self-promotion, though no doubt he will be sorry not to be able to wave around the phrase "Hoover Institution" and bask in its reflected prestige. He'll do fine, somewhere. People like that always do.

[Posted by Hugh at May 29, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:28 PM

May 22, 2007
Fitzgerald: What is to be done

The Administration, and the generals who remain true believers in its policy appear to be suggesting to us two entirely opposite things. (There are generals, and many many officers below that level, who have slowly or quickly come to dislike the Iraq venture and to see, in varying degrees, that the "mission" itself is unattainable, and furthermore, makes no sense.) They tell us that if "we leave" (formerly this was phrased as "if we cut and run," but that phrase is becoming a bit embarrassing) then it doth follow as the night the day that "chaos" and "catastrophe" will come upon Iraq, the entire Middle East, nay the entire world. For we will have what one sudden expert on Islam (Gunaratna) obediently calls a "terrorism Disneyland," and other American-government-contracting "experts" chime in with similar views.

And the Administration goes further. It tells us two things. First it tells us all about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, you see, is the only problem, or the main problem. An Administration that understood things aright would realize that is silly, that Al Qaeda is only the best known and so far most successful group in conducting sensational acts of terrorism, but there are a hundred or a thousand groups, with more formed every day. (Did you hear, before last week, of "Fatah al-Islam" in Lebanon? Of course you didn't).

The Administration offers up every conceivable argument, plausible or implausible, to explain why we cannot, just cannot, leave Iraq to its own sectarian and ethnic fissures. (Those fissures will use up, it has long been maintained in a series of posts here, the men, money, materiel, morale, and attention of co-religionists on both sides of the sectarian divide. And in the ethnic struggle of Kurds to become independent, those fissures will encourage other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers, to demand autonomy or more).

The latest version is the "test of wills" business that Bernard Lewis offered the Wall Street Journal the other day. He offered up a highly tendentious account of why America has been treated so badly, and Russia so well, by Muslims. Ephraim Karsh publicly dissected his account, as a matter of history, subsequently in this article in "The New York Sun." Lewis then went on to repeat the party-line about Iraq as a "test of wills." That is, if the Americans leave, Al Qaeda and not merely Al Qaeda, but the whole Muslim world, and not merely the whole Muslim world, but the whole wide world, will see it as an American "defeat." But will it? Will it if, at the same time, or shortly thereafter, the American administration announces a series of measures that show a better understanding of the Jihad?

What if, for example, the Administration announces a huge new tax on gasoline, and then on other uses of oil, and deliberately lets it be known that such measures should have been undertaken long ago, but that in the past we had been "not sufficiently understood either the threat of anthropogenic climate change, nor the threat of the worldwide Jihad, the chief weapon of which is the Money Weapon -- some ten trillion dollars since 1973." What a shiver down Saudi spines then. What a salutary bit of marching-order rhetoric.

And what if, at the same time, the Administration were to announce that a few thousand troops, backed by air power from the sea, or from bases, perhaps, in Ethiopia (the place of the Christian kingdom of the mythical Prester John), would now protect the black Africans of Darfur, and the black African Christians and animists of the southern Sudan? It would announce that they would hold this area "until such time as a referendum, under safe conditions, free from the intimidation and murder from the Sudanese government itself, can be held to determine the wishes of the black Africans who are clearly being robbed of their wealth and mass-murdered.” That robbery continues, whether the wealth be that of the oil that lies under the land of the black Africans in the south, or the potential wealth of the land itself if seized from its black African inhabitants so that the Muslim Arabs can push their own steady, ruthless, inexorable attempts to destroy the livelihoods of the non-Muslim, and non-Arab Muslim, populations so wrongly left under their control, long ago, by the British.

And since that "referendum" would necessarily lead to a separation of both parts of the country, Darfur and the south, from Arab Muslim control, and the Arabs will recognize this at once, the shrill cries that go up will show them that the American government will at long last cease its futile and absurd efforts to "win the hearts and minds" of Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere, and is from here on out going to do what it can to divide, demoralize, weaken, push back the Camp of Islam and Jihad.

And there are so many other things -- suggested right here, over the past 3 1/2 years, that could and should be done, including calling a meeting of NATO to discuss the "internal security threat" posed by "the Jihadists, present and potential, in our midst." And then there should be changes in both the immigration and naturalization laws of the entire Western world, to keep out, or to push out, those in whose mental baggage remains undeclared a permanent hostility to the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, of Infidel nation-states, and of Infidels themselves.

If this is done, if this is seen to be done, how can one believe that the ululations of triumph by Al Qaeda will last more than a month or two? Is it beyond the wit of the American government to regard the withdrawal from Iraq as anything more than a defeat? (Google, for more, the various discussions here about what constitutes "victory," rightly defined as an outcome that will divide and demoralize, and thereby weaken the Camp of Islam, starting with "Victory Lies Shining Before Us".)

But if the Administration keeps telling us that Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda will "win" if we leave. It calls in everyone it can (Gunaratna, Lewis et al.) to do their stuff, to warn as direly as they can, each in his own way, so as to promote the policy that has failed, is failing, will fail. Yet they at the very same time tell us that if we withdraw (and in this the Sunni Arab rulers of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia help to support, even to pay for, the chorus) then the "Shi'a crescent" that threatens "the entire Middle East" (i.e., threatens the Sunni Arabs), will solidify, will enlarge from a crescent to a full and threatening moon consisting of wicked Shi'a taking over from those Infidel-friendly Sunnis who have done so much for us.

But how can this be? How can an American withdrawal be both an absolute triumph for Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda in Iraq that has preached fervent hatred of Shi'a Islam, that considers the Shi'a to be "Rafidite dogs" and the worst sort of Infidels, and at the same time have the same Administration warn direly that if we withdraw, why then it will be a triumph for the Shi'a of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

It is true, of course, that both sides wish us out. Why is that? Why do you think that both the hyper-Shi'a of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the hyper-Sunnis of Al Qaeda, mortal enemies each to each, wish us at this point out? Why would that be?

Well, here's why it could be. Each side is utterly convinced that it can inherit what it wants in Iraq. They can't both be right. They may, in fact, both be wrong. But the very idea that the American government should keep 150,000 troops tied down (with morale plummeting, and young officers leaving whenever they can, day by day) in Iraq, and keep the American public misinformed about Islam, is madness. The Administration is ignoring the many ways in which the jihadists are fighting this war: through economic warfare (and here Bin Laden has had a smashing success -- the $880 billion spent so wrongly in Iraq is more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, ever fought by the United States) and education/propaganda, education of Infidels (including potential converts) about Islam. By ignoring all this, they are losing an opportunity to fight and win this war the way the Cold War was fought: with propaganda directed at Muslims intended to split or weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad. In that regard, several lines of attack should be stressed:

1) For non-Muslim Arabs, Islam should be seen, correctly, as a vehicle for Arab imperialism. Berbers, Kurds, black Africans in Darfur should be made to recognize the arrogance of the Arabs who treated with such contumely local non-Arab Muslims in both the Balkans and Afghanistan. All this provides the evidence that Islam is an Arab vehicle, as do the texts and tenets of Islam, and the clear attitudes of Arab Muslims -- which can be seen even during the hajj.

2) For Infidels, Islam should be seen, correctly, as far more than is described in the word "religion." Rather, it should be seen as a Belief-System that includes a politics and a geopolitics, and that is based on a severe and uncompromising division of the world between Believers (to whom all loyalty is owed as fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya) and Infidels (to whom nothing is owed, no matter what kindnesses or help is extended by those Infidels).

3) For Infidels and Muslims alike, the connection must be intelligently made between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic societies and peoples, and Islam itself. Islam is a collectivist belief-system in which the Individual has no rights if those rights (freedom of conscience, freedom of speech) are held to harm Islam. Islam is a system which promotes submission to despotic rule and flatly contradicts, in letter and spirit, the moral basis of advanced Western democracies. Islam is a brake on economic development (inshallah-fatalism), Islam is a moral failure (the unequal treatment of non-Muslims and women), Islam is an intellectual failure (the habit of mental submission, necessary for Islam's wellbeing, that also prevents free and skeptical inquiry without which the enterprise of science is lost). All that should be stressed, along with those narrow limits on artistic expression: sculpture, representations of living creatures, and even music is banned under those strictly following, in the Taliban manner, the rules of Haram and Halal.

4) It should be pointed out to the oil-poor Arabs that despite the supposed loyalty of the members of the umma each to each, the rich Arabs, although they are happy to pay for mosques and madrasas and boughten academics and armies of Western hirelings to promote their interests, are remarkably selfish when it comes to actually aiding their fellow Muslims. They prefer to insist that the Infidels do it. And the Infidels have been doing it. While Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Qatar and the U.A.E., with tiny populations, take in billions every day, it is left to the long-suffering Western Infidel taxpayers, pushed around by their own ignorant and clumsy governments (wishing to buy temporary or feigned, or temporary and feigned, "goodwill" from Arabs and Muslims), to keep shelling out money to those petty despots and regimes -- $60 billion in American aid alone to Egypt, $10 billion to Jordan, $28 billion since 2001 alone to Pakistan, and so on. That aid should come, if it comes at all, from Saudi Arabia, from the U.A.E., from Kuwait.

The third great fissure, along with the sectarian and the ethnic ones by now so evident to all but some in the Bush Administration, is economic. And here there may be a certain nervousness about any hint of discussions, even for the purpose of encouraging disarray and resentment in the Camp of Islam, of the maldistribution in order to encourage resentment, by the poor Muslims, of the rich Muslims. One can imagine why children of inherited privilege (Bush), or those who managed to go from their "public service" to corporate careers that gave them gigantic fortunes within a few years (Cheney), in both parties, might shy away from exploitation of such a weapon. But in this war, all weapons need to be employed, and the least of them, right now, the one that does nothing for us, are those boots-on-the-ground in Tarbaby Iraq -- turning quickly into the La Brea Tar Pits, with the ignorant-of-Islam-and-of-Iraq in both the civilian and military leadership becoming permanently stuck, and fossilized, before our very eyes.

[Posted by Hugh at May 22, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:31 PM

Oh Yeah I have a third option.
Stay and fight in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, remove the worthless ROE and allow the soldiers to take care of the nutjobs in turbans...

At the same time Arrest Harry Reid, John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi and try them for treason, followed by a quick yep painful hanging.

while we are at it, Make the NYT, LAT, put a disclaimer in front of all of their anti-American articles that says this is a one sided view point based on fantasy.

Hows that?

Posted by: Robert at September 10, 2007 6:34 PM

Now let's see:

Who will one listen to ? Tarbaby Hugh or General Petraeus ? Both claim that they will likely produce victory, one hasn't, and to a limited degree the other has ?

Now which one should one go with ?

This is so tough to decide.

God bless America and her fighting men and women.

Posted by: dgene at September 10, 2007 6:47 PM

June 4, 2007

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Lt. Col. David Kilcullen

"If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys -- a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the moment, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that's the same thing that drives me, you know?" -- David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, senior commander in Iraq

The "impressive" and "brilliant" (first in his class in military school in Australia) Lt. Col. David Kilcullen should be asked a number of questions about his all-purpose, one-size-more-or-less- fits-all (after a little softening of the boots-on-the-ground leather) "rules of counterinsurgency." He should be questioned about how and why he thinks the insurrection in Malaya, or that in Greece, are like that in Iraq. He might tell us who in those "insurgencies" played the role of the Sunnis, or rather of the two main Sunni groups, which yesterday collaborated with each other and yet today are apparently at daggers drawn, and which tomorrow might yet collaborate against the Shi'a, and which in any case are, all of them, against the Infidel Americans (though the "Anbar tribes" of which we hear so much are happy to pocket American aid).

And he might tell us who in those "insurgencies" played the role of the Shi'a, or rather of the different groups of Shi'a -- of Moqtada al-Sadr, and of Hakim of SCIRI, and Maliki of the Da'wa Party. And he then might tell us who, in Greece or Malaya or Aden or Kenya or East Timor or wherever it is that provides him with the "data" for his "counterinsurgency" ideas, played the role of the Kurds, who though Muslim are more grateful and reliable for American purposes than any of the Arab groups.

And then one might ask Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, he of the impressive strine accent (any accent but an American one can woo and win the easily-impressed likes of Condoleeza Rice), if he sees anything that might distinguish Iraq otherwise from his "counterinsurgency" "laws" and "rules" and "lessons." For example, what is the significance of the existence of Shi'a Iran on one side of Iraq, along its longest border, and of states (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Egypt, even Syria -- which is 70% Sunni though the Alawites are not, and Sunni Muslims as well as most Shi'a do not regard them even as real Muslims, given their cult of Mary) dominated by or largely peopled by Sunni Arabs on the other side? Does the ability of both sides to aid their co-religionists, and their keen awareness of the need to do so, not give pause to Lt. Col. David Kilcullen and to those who are impressed with him?

Do they not see beyond Iraq to a larger war, a war not simply with what Lt. Col. David Kilcullen has described as "a kook in a room" whom we must prevent from having mass appeal? Jihad already has, and always will have, "mass appeal" to Muslims. And Bin Laden is not a "kook"; Khomeini was not a "kook"; Nasrallah is not a "kook"; the leaders of the Ikhwan, wherever the Ikhwan has its many cells, are not "kooks" -- they are perfectly traditional Muslims, who choose to act on the central duty of Jihad by direct participation, rather than offering other kinds of support, such as promoting Da'wa in the Western world, or buying up Western hirelings, or merely contributing their mite to demographic conquest and a slow undoing of Infidel legal and political institutions. The enemy is Jihad, or more bluntly, the supremacist Belief-System that Lt. Col. David Kilcullen self-assuredly think she knows quite enough of, when he knows dangerously little. And that little, that ignorance of Islam, and of the ethnic and sectarian fissures in Iraq, explains the fiasco to date.

Final question: who, in all those other "insurgencies" from which the Kilcullens of this world and those who are impressed by them draw their "laws," played the role of the Chaldeans, and the Assyrians, the people who are, like the Mandeans and Yazidis, the ones who have fled, or are fleeing, or are being killed, because Islam, you see...is Islam? The Kilcullens of this world and those who are impressed by them do not see the complete picture, of which Iraq is only a part. Nor do they see the need in Iraq to end with a result that justifies the colossal investment, that is, a result that will guarantee further divisions and demoralizations within the camp of Islamic supremacism.

[Posted by Hugh at June 4, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:54 PM

Now let's see:

Who will one listen to ? Tarbaby Hugh or General Petraeus ? Both claim that they will likely produce victory, one hasn't, and to a limited degree the other has ?

Now which one should one go with ?

This is so tough to decide.

God bless America and her fighting men and women.

Posted by: dgene at September 10, 2007 6:54 PM

Good points, Hugh, especially the one about the Money Weapon. In that regard, consider this interesting phenomenon: Why do you think it is that the insurgency is so much fiercer in Iraq than Afghanistan, despite the fact that Afghanistan provides better cover, being mountainous? I think it's because the Muslims know damn well that Iraq has the fourth largest oil reserves in the world.
Whatever happens in Iraq, and I agree with the preposterous prospects of democracy, we really will have lost if those reserves fall into radical hands. Of course, our efforts right now are merely paving the way for that by trying to pacify the country for a Muslim government. But a precipitous withdrawal would have the same result, eventually.
The problem is one of failing to define goals that are both realistic and put our own interests first.
After being attacked, and then jerked around for years by Saddam Hussein and every other Muslim regime, we don't owe those guys spit.

Posted by: jewdog at September 10, 2007 6:54 PM

June 4, 2007

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Lt. Col. David Kilcullen

"If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys -- a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the moment, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that's the same thing that drives me, you know?" -- David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, senior commander in Iraq

The "impressive" and "brilliant" (first in his class in military school in Australia) Lt. Col. David Kilcullen should be asked a number of questions about his all-purpose, one-size-more-or-less- fits-all (after a little softening of the boots-on-the-ground leather) "rules of counterinsurgency." He should be questioned about how and why he thinks the insurrection in Malaya, or that in Greece, are like that in Iraq. He might tell us who in those "insurgencies" played the role of the Sunnis, or rather of the two main Sunni groups, which yesterday collaborated with each other and yet today are apparently at daggers drawn, and which tomorrow might yet collaborate against the Shi'a, and which in any case are, all of them, against the Infidel Americans (though the "Anbar tribes" of which we hear so much are happy to pocket American aid).

And he might tell us who in those "insurgencies" played the role of the Shi'a, or rather of the different groups of Shi'a -- of Moqtada al-Sadr, and of Hakim of SCIRI, and Maliki of the Da'wa Party. And he then might tell us who, in Greece or Malaya or Aden or Kenya or East Timor or wherever it is that provides him with the "data" for his "counterinsurgency" ideas, played the role of the Kurds, who though Muslim are more grateful and reliable for American purposes than any of the Arab groups.

And then one might ask Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, he of the impressive strine accent (any accent but an American one can woo and win the easily-impressed likes of Condoleeza Rice), if he sees anything that might distinguish Iraq otherwise from his "counterinsurgency" "laws" and "rules" and "lessons." For example, what is the significance of the existence of Shi'a Iran on one side of Iraq, along its longest border, and of states (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Egypt, even Syria -- which is 70% Sunni though the Alawites are not, and Sunni Muslims as well as most Shi'a do not regard them even as real Muslims, given their cult of Mary) dominated by or largely peopled by Sunni Arabs on the other side? Does the ability of both sides to aid their co-religionists, and their keen awareness of the need to do so, not give pause to Lt. Col. David Kilcullen and to those who are impressed with him?

Do they not see beyond Iraq to a larger war, a war not simply with what Lt. Col. David Kilcullen has described as "a kook in a room" whom we must prevent from having mass appeal? Jihad already has, and always will have, "mass appeal" to Muslims. And Bin Laden is not a "kook"; Khomeini was not a "kook"; Nasrallah is not a "kook"; the leaders of the Ikhwan, wherever the Ikhwan has its many cells, are not "kooks" -- they are perfectly traditional Muslims, who choose to act on the central duty of Jihad by direct participation, rather than offering other kinds of support, such as promoting Da'wa in the Western world, or buying up Western hirelings, or merely contributing their mite to demographic conquest and a slow undoing of Infidel legal and political institutions. The enemy is Jihad, or more bluntly, the supremacist Belief-System that Lt. Col. David Kilcullen self-assuredly think she knows quite enough of, when he knows dangerously little. And that little, that ignorance of Islam, and of the ethnic and sectarian fissures in Iraq, explains the fiasco to date.

Final question: who, in all those other "insurgencies" from which the Kilcullens of this world and those who are impressed by them draw their "laws," played the role of the Chaldeans, and the Assyrians, the people who are, like the Mandeans and Yazidis, the ones who have fled, or are fleeing, or are being killed, because Islam, you see...is Islam? The Kilcullens of this world and those who are impressed by them do not see the complete picture, of which Iraq is only a part. Nor do they see the need in Iraq to end with a result that justifies the colossal investment, that is, a result that will guarantee further divisions and demoralizations within the camp of Islamic supremacism.

[Posted by Hugh at June 4, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 6:58 PM

Occupying a hostile population is never a good proposition. There's a reason why the Jewish laws of warfare are void of the assumption of occupation, nay, they forbid it in the strongest terms.

(You don't need to tell me that Israel isn't operating according to those laws. *sigh* )

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 10, 2007 6:59 PM

Oh Yeah I have a third option.
Stay and fight in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, remove the worthless ROE and allow the soldiers to take care of the nutjobs in turbans...

At the same time Arrest Harry Reid, John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi and try them for treason, followed by a quick yep painful hanging.

Hows that?
--posted by Robert

Proof that your I.Q. is smaller than my shoe size.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at September 10, 2007 7:02 PM

June 4, 2007

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Lt. Col. David Kilcullen

"If I were a Muslim, I'd probably be a jihadist. The thing that drives these guys -- a sense of adventure, wanting to be part of the moment, wanting to be in the big movement of history that's happening now -- that's the same thing that drives me, you know?" -- David Kilcullen, senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, senior commander in Iraq

The "impressive" and "brilliant" (first in his class in military school in Australia) Lt. Col. David Kilcullen should be asked a number of questions about his all-purpose, one-size-more-or-less- fits-all (after a little softening of the boots-on-the-ground leather) "rules of counterinsurgency." He should be questioned about how and why he thinks the insurrection in Malaya, or that in Greece, are like that in Iraq. He might tell us who in those "insurgencies" played the role of the Sunnis, or rather of the two main Sunni groups, which yesterday collaborated with each other and yet today are apparently at daggers drawn, and which tomorrow might yet collaborate against the Shi'a, and which in any case are, all of them, against the Infidel Americans (though the "Anbar tribes" of which we hear so much are happy to pocket American aid).

And he might tell us who in those "insurgencies" played the role of the Shi'a, or rather of the different groups of Shi'a -- of Moqtada al-Sadr, and of Hakim of SCIRI, and Maliki of the Da'wa Party. And he then might tell us who, in Greece or Malaya or Aden or Kenya or East Timor or wherever it is that provides him with the "data" for his "counterinsurgency" ideas, played the role of the Kurds, who though Muslim are more grateful and reliable for American purposes than any of the Arab groups.

And then one might ask Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, he of the impressive strine accent (any accent but an American one can woo and win the easily-impressed likes of Condoleeza Rice), if he sees anything that might distinguish Iraq otherwise from his "counterinsurgency" "laws" and "rules" and "lessons." For example, what is the significance of the existence of Shi'a Iran on one side of Iraq, along its longest border, and of states (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Egypt, even Syria -- which is 70% Sunni though the Alawites are not, and Sunni Muslims as well as most Shi'a do not regard them even as real Muslims, given their cult of Mary) dominated by or largely peopled by Sunni Arabs on the other side? Does the ability of both sides to aid their co-religionists, and their keen awareness of the need to do so, not give pause to Lt. Col. David Kilcullen and to those who are impressed with him?

Do they not see beyond Iraq to a larger war, a war not simply with what Lt. Col. David Kilcullen has described as "a kook in a room" whom we must prevent from having mass appeal? Jihad already has, and always will have, "mass appeal" to Muslims. And Bin Laden is not a "kook"; Khomeini was not a "kook"; Nasrallah is not a "kook"; the leaders of the Ikhwan, wherever the Ikhwan has its many cells, are not "kooks" -- they are perfectly traditional Muslims, who choose to act on the central duty of Jihad by direct participation, rather than offering other kinds of support, such as promoting Da'wa in the Western world, or buying up Western hirelings, or merely contributing their mite to demographic conquest and a slow undoing of Infidel legal and political institutions. The enemy is Jihad, or more bluntly, the supremacist Belief-System that Lt. Col. David Kilcullen self-assuredly think she knows quite enough of, when he knows dangerously little. And that little, that ignorance of Islam, and of the ethnic and sectarian fissures in Iraq, explains the fiasco to date.

Final question: who, in all those other "insurgencies" from which the Kilcullens of this world and those who are impressed by them draw their "laws," played the role of the Chaldeans, and the Assyrians, the people who are, like the Mandeans and Yazidis, the ones who have fled, or are fleeing, or are being killed, because Islam, you see...is Islam? The Kilcullens of this world and those who are impressed by them do not see the complete picture, of which Iraq is only a part. Nor do they see the need in Iraq to end with a result that justifies the colossal investment, that is, a result that will guarantee further divisions and demoralizations within the camp of Islamic supremacism.

[Posted by Hugh at June 4, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2007 7:05 PM

Ynkedoodl2, or proof that your shoe size is the only thing on you worth mentioning.

Posted by: Robert at September 10, 2007 7:07 PM

Any self-sustaining government in Iraq, that is quasi democratic, is an American success and weakens the Jihadis.

Any perceived defeat of U.S. aims strengthens the Jihadis in direct proportion to the magnitude of that defeat.

If not in Iraq then where? Who will join us after we have displayed our weakness and failure to the world?

If the worlds’ only superpower and champion of freedom is seen as impotent against the Jihadis, who will then step up to oppose them?

If not us then Who?

Posted by: Davegreybeard at September 10, 2007 7:17 PM

Hugh...

Dear Lord!

Hugh I respect you. You are tying to educate the ignorant who clearly don't understand...

(1) Basic strategy
(2) The nature of Islam

I sort of get that feeling we are riding into Hattin and Sir Cornelius and his merry band are leading us...

I hope my horse is fast...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at September 10, 2007 7:22 PM

The Democrats don't care how many Americans die as long as a democrat can be president - to them the more dead american body bags the better. Thats why the MSM gleefully reports each and every american death.

Does anyone really think they give a rats ass how many Iraqi's are killed? I don't. Which is why they are pushing to surrender Iraq.

Posted by: CrazyFool at September 10, 2007 7:22 PM

Foehammer:
Do what I've been saying to do for years now: smack the crap out of Iran to cripple its military so that it cannot take over Iraq without insane amounts of resources expended.

Nope, leave it. Just make sure that Iran and its proxy Hezbollah knows that that the crap will be bombed out of them if they so much as 1 missile is lobbed Israels way. Iran should be told upfront that their only refinery will be reduced to rubble. Instead let Kuwait, Saudi Arabia expend their petrodollars and military hardware against Iran.

Why wade in? You only need to if SA screws up big time. And no matter how many siren noises comes from SA - do nothing (you can be sympathetic while laughing into hankerchiefs as long as you do nothing). This is classic military tactics of letting 2 common enemies slug it out and only taking action against who is left once they have weakened each other.
Going by the dictum : Anything that weakens Islam is good.

Move all American and Coalition forces out of Iraqi urban areas. Guard the oil fields.

Leave them.

Shut our borders to Muslim immigrants and shut-off the flow of dirty Saudi oil money to the United States in every way, shape and form possible. No madrassas being built in NYC or anywhere else.

Yes. Absolutely. And start funding diplomatic initiatives, radio and TV broadcasts that counter Islamic propaganda. CIA should be given new objectives - anything weakening Islam is good. If Islamic organisations are almost at blows with each other (e.g. Fateh & Hamas) - the CIA should see if they could fan it into war - nothing inept mind you. Shut down financial help to 57 OIC countries. Any financial help should be made conditional on them treating their minorities with dignity, no honour killings.

Elect a new President that actually understands the real threat -- do any of them?

Yup

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at September 10, 2007 7:31 PM

Wow, It really takes a learned academic like Robert to point out to you'll that Osama is planning an attack?

Posted by: cerebate at September 10, 2007 7:34 PM

With an obstinacy bordering on the insane, Messrs
Bush & Co aided by aimable stooge General Petraeus
are to 'stay the course' in Iraq. Not satisfied with sqandering years of American blood & treasure, they intend to spend more to achieve-what ?? Exactly WHEN will the Islamic Republic of
Iraq be ready-be the Multicultural, Democratic power sharing Government that woolly headed Western Idealists want to project upon an alien culture & people...Western Leaders & Bush in particular,
seem incapable of learning from past mistakes of
U.S Foreign Policy.
Samuel Huntingdon warned of this in his book 'Clash of Civilizations' that the West must
NOT ASSUME & PROJECT THEIR MORES that the rest of
the world wanted the same things, e.g.DEMOCRACY
especially in countries which had never know any.
No good will come of this decision-many posting here know this too. See a weakened America haemorrhaging on two fronts[maybe a third] which
will delight Al Quaeda who will mercilessly strike
with impunity. Since Bush has gone out of his way
to insult Orthodox Christians & their concerns,
powerful contries such as Russia & India, he and
America will truly reap the Whirlwind...
China is no friend of arrogant America but possessing subtle minds [and brains] will already
be calculating when they will step into No I slot
in the world!

Posted by: Morgane at September 10, 2007 7:40 PM

Hugh
Q. General Petraeus, the population of Iraq is, with the current flight of the Christians, now about 98% Muslim, isn't that correct?

A.: I'd have to check my figures, but that sounds about right.

Q.: So it might be helpful to find out what Islam is all about, isn't that right?

A.: No i do not. It would be a waste of time for us, because there are various sects in Islam and because no two people believe the same thing. That some motivation is politicial, some financial , some mob behavior and some religious.
Perhaps armchair academics with no idea about what war entails and the complexities of war would have us think so, but i believe it would be a wastage of resources.

Q. : Hey Robert, he didnt answer the questions like you told me he would. What do i do now?

Posted by: cerebate at September 10, 2007 7:43 PM

I'm afraid none of the presidential candidates at this point has a realistic assessment. On the Tonight Show last week, Leno asked Fred Thompson about his position on Iraq. Much to my dismay, Fred said something about the need to remain until we "get the job done". Jay then asked him, quite intelligently in my view, "just what does 'get the job done' mean?" Fred, again to my dismay, spouted some nonsense about making the place safe for those purple-fingertipped(shiites) who voted for the present government. We deserve better answers than that.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 10, 2007 7:45 PM

'Any perceived defeat of U.S. aims strengthens the Jihadis in direct proportion to the magnitude of that defeat.' Posted by: Davegreybeard

The Americans will be defeated, it's just a matter of when. This is because they cannot devote infinite manpower on the ground, and their presence in mostly rejected by the populace. Whatever number of jihadists are liquidated becomes a mout point, a TEMPORARY success if you will. The moslems will always regroup, plot, coerce to destroy the kuffir at all costs. Any agreement at creating a democracy will be a hudna, a contrived deception at gaining the confidence of the Americans. It will dissolve as soon as troop levels decrease - you can bet the farm on that!

If not in Iraq then where? Who will join us after we have displayed our weakness and failure to the world? Posted by: Davegreybeard

Who else of our allies willfully agreed to this travesty in the first place? Who else besides England has joined forces by contributing significant forces to the cause? Seems to me, American has been alone from the beginning.

If the worlds’ only superpower and champion of freedom is seen as impotent against the Jihadis, who will then step up to oppose them?
Posted by: Davegreybeard

It's not about us giving up against the jihadis but more about how to take the fight to them in a smarter and more meaningful way. I certainly do not have all the answers here; but what I can say is that foreign policy, as it stands currently, is a colossal failure. We've handed Iraq to Iran on a platter. We have thought about the conflict from a western only perspective, and failed to anticipate the religious divide. Worst of all, killing jihadists in Iraq doesn't mean a damn thing when terrorists can enter at will through the southern border. Maybe we can start an alliance of democracies and fight Jihad ideaogy in a more effective manner?

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at September 10, 2007 7:56 PM

Paladin is, of course, correct. Staying only means more $$$$ and more death (for our soldiers). Who knows what the near-term end game will be? Perhaps the Iranian govt will be overthrown; or perhaps we or Israel will attack it and destabilize it. And, sure, AQ will be there and the population will be terrorized. It will mostly likely follow the Somalia pattern until strongmen rise and control large chunks of territory. Sadly, for us, our government (Dems and GOP) will learn nothing from this about Islam.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at September 10, 2007 8:00 PM

May 15, 2007

Fitzgerald: Uncle Sap

Cheney "worked to overcome Saudi skepticism" about Maliki? But King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is not "skeptical" at all. King Abdullah has no concerns about the "leadership abilities" of Maliki, or for that matter Jaafari before him, or of the "leadership abilities" of any Shi'ite leader or Shi'a-dominated government in Iraq.

King Abdullah is not concerned about "leadership abilities." He knows perfectly well what Maliki, what Maliki's party, Hizb al-Da'wa (the Army of Da'wa) is all about. It's about Shi'a Islam. And still worse, that word "Da'wa" sends shudders down Sunni spines, because while Sunnis have been conducting Da'wa among Infidels in the West, Shi'a have been, as the Egyptian and Saudi press report grimly (and no doubt with exaggeration), actively trying to conduct Da'wa among the Sunni Muslims, in Syria, in Lebanon, and elsewhere. And who knows better than King Abdullah and other Sunni Muslims how cunning, how relentless, how dangerous Muslims engaged in campaigns of Da'wa can be?

And in addition to Maliki and the Hizb al-Da'wa, there is SCIRI, and Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish-e-Mahdi. Abdullah knows about all of them. Oh, he knows.

He knows, and he doesn't like. Behind the forced smiles, Abdullah and the rest of the Al-Saud family, doesn’t like it at all. Neither does Mubarak, or the members of Mubarak's Family-and-Friends Plan who rule over Egypt and pocket so much of its wealth. And of course Son-of-Plucky-Little-King Hussein, Abdullah of Jordan, doesn't like it either. They aren't in favor of replacing Maliki with someone more forceful. Their unhappiness is not with Maliki. Their unhappiness is with the Shi'a ascendancy and the loss of Sunni power.

And just like the Sunnis within Iraq, the Sunnis outside Iraq will never reconcile themselves to this loss. Never. Why not? Well, here is where a little history might do Cheney and Bush and Rice, not for the first time, a little good. They should recognize that the adherents of the belief-system of Islam are, all of them, history-haunted -- because to them, in a sense, there is no history. There is only Islam, and before Islam, outside of Islam, nothing really matters. And Islam is paralysis, is stasis. There is no such thing as "progress" in Islamic history, but only the history of Islamic success and dominance. And wh