Plenty of people have their reputations staked, to be sure, on the descent of Iraq into mayhem and mass murder. But something like victory is starting to shape up.

To begin with, the breakthrough in the Sunni provinces is nothing shy of a miracle.

The Marines "banged their heads against the wall" long enough for a moment of clarity to seize the Sunnis of Anbar. Dismissing the Americans, they had placed themselves under overlordship of al Qaeda, which Anbaris now understand to be takfiris even as we know them to be jihadis. The difference is largely in the eye of the beholder: maybe an infidel in Connecticut, maybe a contemptible "regular mom and dad" in some village outside Ramadi.

By either name--jihadi or takfiri--they are purveyors of horror:

Toddlers baked in ovens.
Daughters forced into sexual slavery for clammy hands from Amman.
Meat-cleaver amputations.
Corpses left to rot in the desert.
The complete failure of everything from electricity to commerce.

In Anbar the locals--with help from Americans and Shia battalions--are routing al Qaeda.

But like romantics rooting for the murderous IRA from themed bars in Boston suburbs, Cairenes and Damascenes (and the enemies of privilege in Berkeley) cheer the jihadis in Iraq who are lionzed by Al Jazeera as heros of Islam for fighting the American invader: "let's you and him fight."

The Anbaris, battered to wakefulness, now know better. The Kurds always have. There are the first glimmers of evidence that the Shia would rather not surrender their American-bought independence to Iran, or even to their own militias and criminal gangs.

Iraq has behaved as one would expect a victim of prolonged, brutal abuse to behave: it succumbed to an uncontrolled, violent tantrum. America, and its handful of friends, held Iraq down, restraining it until the wave of violent spasms subsided. Much to the disappointment of those who would see Iraq become a butchery, the violence there is dropping off precipitously.

There are a number of things that must be done to defend America and the rest of emancipated humanity from Islam; things unthinkable in the fine light of 1997 but now starkly obvious: selective political deportations; a near-total prohibition of Muslim immigration, even of refugees from Iraq; regulation and monitoring of mosques; state-vetting of the curriculum at madrassas; bans on Sharia; the end of foreign funding of Muslim activities and organizations in the West. We have to abandon oil in an explicit act of war. We have to actively seek out and guard the Ayaan Hirsi Alis who have broken their chains and have the courage to demand that civilization not sleepwalk into those same chains.

But none of this is to say that there is honor in abandoning Iraq in some pat Machiavellian jink whereby the killing fields get started in earnest. Nor is there gain to be had that way.

At last, the outlines of a three-way accommodation are starting to emerge in Iraq, and something like self-government at the local level is developing. It's nothing pretty, but maybe something livable, like Lebanon, where human misery is not in total control, even if Madison and Jefferson would see room for improvement.

The dust-caked American infantryman in Iraq has "made a difference in the lives of normal folks," as terribly as that phrase (no doubt in a Southern drawl) may grate on certain refined ears more attuned to the high notes of social justice.

Can we give him some more time?

Posted by: counterjihadi at November 8, 2007 6:36 PM

"All of this has nothing to do with the expensive effort in Iraq, with its squandering of men, money, materiel, and morale, both civilian and military"

I like this M-Quad (Men, money, material, and morale)of description better than the MMRM (Men, money, resources, and morale). The Quad has a better ring to it.

This new one should abrogate the previous description of the waste of US resources etc.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at November 8, 2007 6:52 PM

counterjihadi: Fine post. My compliments. So many who see Iraq as a debacle just assume that America in Iraq is as bad as it can get. What if it's about as good as it can get? Fighting the Islamic barbarian far away from America's shores, doing as much as possible to have most Muslims assert their humanity over their wretched religion and winning people over a little at a time, which the American soldier is superb at doing, may be just about the best of all possible scenarios out there.

I heartily agree with you too that just because America is once again having to fix yet another part of the world because the world is mostly a stupid place, that doesn't mean we have to pretend that Islam is a good thing. It is not, and so we must ban Muslim immigration here, difficult as that will be to do legally, and continue the fight, which will be a new Hundred Years War I fear, against the most monstrous totalitarain ideology of all time-----Islam in its active form. And I wish those who want us to leave Iraq would understand that leaving there will not be costless. Far from it, it could make leaving Southeast Asia in 1975 seem the very model of sapience by a great power.

Posted by: Wellington at November 8, 2007 7:30 PM

Hugh, counterjihadi, keen thoughts. An A+ on your tome were you to have offered practical solutions. Imagine you both had the resources of the President of the United States, or you are Musharraf, or the King of Saudi Arabia, and you want things to cool down. What practical steps do you take?

I'm not going to outline a bunch of scenarios to explain the reality of the situation that George, or Pervez, or Khaddafy of Libya have to deal with while they administer their respective nations, day after day after day.

We have a contingent of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, on each side of Iran ..., uhm, the military has always had a crosshair focus on Iran; look at how they've set up the chessboard to be at this point in time.

I am and have always been confident of the decisions from our military leaders, even Rumsfeld, so let's leave the thoughts for a military solution to them, and focus on that war on Jihad Hugh spoke of. The jugular is the Quran. How does one go about destroying the teachings of that book to the next generation? If that book of theirs can be rendered equivalent to Mayan or Aztec religious thought, the next generation of gullible, easily manipulative little boys and girls over there won't fall sway to Jihad when they become adults.

The Quran is so bogus. If I myself had the resources of the President, mobilizing the Hollywood and New York entertainment industry would be step one. With no degenerate agendas from the Democrats, though presentation of these social ills will be presented with our conservative bias and perspectives, I would present serious situational sitcoms similar to dramas such as the Soprano's, Band of Brothers to tastefully, soberly, with tact and finesse present a world that contrasts Islam with the Best of the West.

"Hey kid, wanna ride on the space shuttle?"

Have I introduced Mara to the people of Jihad Watch? No, or even if I have, everyone now, please stand, get up off your chair, and let's give a warm round of applause and welcome our dear Mara.

I cannot even write words of thought describing the script I have in mind now, here, except to say yes, what a physically and psychologically healthy little girl we have produced here in the West. What kind of dialog could I think of where a Mara is presented the way she is on YouTube in a sitcom, and not told to shut up because the Quran says precociousness is evil. Given some time I'm sure I could think of some nicely worded dialog for the ears of those in Islamdumb land to prick their conscience with.

"Mohammed, listen to me! All technology has come from a handful of Western people. All of it!! Every single bit of it!!!"

"Their culture makes men and women think of the electron, of molecular bonds, and then they invent radios and medicines with it. It's known as Ohms Law, and Maxwell's equation, not Sayeed's Law, not Ali's equation! The future will be written by them, and not us! They! are going to prevail, and they are going to kill Islam with all their constructive thoughts."

A shocked Mohammed wants to strangle this twinkie for talking about Islam with disrespect. Instead, the full weight of the words impact on the noodle of Mo. And he realizes it's true. The Islamic people living inside a Sharia-based cultures have, and will always suck straight out loud ..., in comparison to the West.

It's true. The West IS the Best.

And while Hollywood and New York studios are potential targets, George and Condi could set up something like Voice of America, or a Radio Free Europe for the Islamic crowd, beamed by satellite to their people, and whether their governments like our shows or not.

We can win their hearts and minds. We need to do this, before the first nuclear terroristic expression happens. Then, everything changes.

There's still time. And wouldn't it be nice to have the history books say it was some obscure, anonymous bloggers, some conservative bloggers from the third most popular website called Jihad Watch that set the gears in motion which caused Islam to be rendered archaic, and there are no practicing Islamics fifty years from now.

The jugular of Jihad is that bogus book called the Quran. My crosshairs have locked on it ..., I only wish I could say I was now zooming in for the kill.

Posted by: mergatroid at November 8, 2007 8:13 PM

I wonder what Hugh thinks of Ron Paul.

Posted by: pagan at November 8, 2007 8:28 PM

The camp of Islam has been weakened by the bloodthirsty, barbarism of its psychotic zealots.
The heart of every American who is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is being motivated by the ideals that their forefathers died for: that no religion shall subdue the rest and that all should be free to worship as they believe. The rotten cream of the crop of Sunni and Shia has risen to the top and have butchered in the name of Allah. Christians and Muslims and all in Iraq have seen who the enemy is: and if that is true Islam indeed, most rational men will have no part of it.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/thanks-and-praise.htm

Posted by: Briars at November 8, 2007 9:02 PM

"Ron Paul..."

Ron Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq, though welcome, is not prompted by the same considerations that I have in mind, and he gives no sign of wanting to make sure that an American withdrawal accompanied by other measures that would demonstrate that this would be done not in defeatist fashion, but as part of a larger policy of containment, in the case of Iraq (only one small theatre in a very large war, a war without end) being based not on messianic hopes, or even non-messianic ones, about bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads," but in welcoming, and exploiting, rather than attempting to patch up, the pre-existing fissures, ethnic and sectarian, that Iraq offers on a platter. I don't think he sees the menace of Islam. He's a Government-Is-Bad man. I prefer those who are Dumb-Government-Is-Bad men.

Posted by: Hugh at November 8, 2007 9:58 PM

"To begin with, the breakthrough in the Sunni provinces is nothing shy of a miracle."

I wouldn't call the acceptance of cash by sunni sheiks as payment for their allegiance to the U.S. "miraculous". I call it business as usual.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p01s04-wome.html

Posted by: USorThem at November 8, 2007 10:11 PM

"An A+ on your tome were you to have offered practical solutions."
-- from a posting above

"Were [I] to have offered practical solutions"? Good God. See Jihad Watch, passim. Start with the articles listed in the bar above.

Look for "Sudan, seizure of Darfur and southern." Look for "tax, gasoline and oil." Look for "Saudi assets, seizure of or threat to seize." Look for "Saudi Arabia, reading the riot act to." Look for "Fissures, ethnic" and "Fissures, sectarian" and "Fissures, economic." Look at "Apostates from Islam, enrolling in the war effort." Look for "Oligopolistic rents, recapture of." Look for "Works by Apostates, published at U.S. government expense." Look for "Ameridan prisons, using Sudanese Lost Boys." Look for "Arab slave trade, publicizing." Look for "Arab slave trade and raids in Europe, publicizing." Look for another several dozen "practical suggestions." And what you do not find among the hundreds of articles you will find in the thousands of "Posted by" posts. Take a look.

Posted by: Hugh at November 8, 2007 10:19 PM

Hugh:

I agree with most of what you right (at least the parts that I understand---I won't pretend to understand all of the historical side bars in your posts but I do enjoy reading them and performing subsequent google searches).

I never would have supported the Iraq war originally if I had known then what I know now. However, we are there, and getting out in a way that is not a defeat is important in my view, for reasons both domestic and foreign.

Declare victory from the surge, draw down, and go home. The difference between our positions gets smaller by the day, as I think the current "success" is sufficient for leaving.

I think this experience although costly in many respects could nonetheless be a valuable experiment.

Iraq is as good a place as any to test the whether the innate qualities of human beings are fully capable of being molded by ideological instruction. People like Marx, Stalin, and Hitler looked at man as being maleable. They were proven right to some degree, but the brainwashing was never fully in effect even though the power of the state was extremely strong.

Now that there is some sense of "peace" in Iraq, we can leave, and see what the Iraqi's make of the place. Gather data, publicize findings, etc. Some people in Iraq will transcend their Islamic beliefs. Others will kill those who do. If we leave with things in a relative state of non-war, then the experiment will have some uses, and the results can cited for future decision making.

Some in the right-wing media are committed to their Iraq positions for reasons relating to pride and credibility. Others are simply in disbelief that human nature can be fully supplanted by ideology. I fall in the second camp, although I think Islam may be the greatest challenge to this conservative proposition.

Posted by: JSobieski at November 8, 2007 11:01 PM

Have no fear Hugh. This temporal victory in Iraq will be trumpeted by the nefarious no doubt, but hopefully culminating in the defeat of Lady Macbeth.

But temporal this victory is nonetheless, for the ranks of the Islamic jihadists are easily replenished, available from a pool of over 1 billion Muslims, who all share the same ideological mindset...Islam.

I am not a betting man, but......

A hardline stance to weaken or ultimately destroy the "camp of Islam" is definately warranted.

Who exactly wants things in the ME to "cool down"?

Posted by: awake at November 8, 2007 11:04 PM

boy, such a target-rich environment, I hardly know where to begin.

Wellington wrote:

"I heartily agree with you too that just because America is once again having to fix yet another part of the world ..."

Do you really picture America fixing another part of the world, namely the muslim countries? To think that we can go from one muslim country to another spreading democracy, like Johnny Appleseed, is absurd. Even if we had the resources in men, material, money (I'm sure you saw the revised estimates for the Afghan & Iraqi wars: $2 TRILLION) & morale -- which we obviously don't -- I would have thought by now that it's clear to everyone that forcing democracy on an islamic country like a parent forcing cough medicine down the throat of an uncooperative child won't work. Oh, they may embrace the democratic process, but only because it's a clean way of achieving sharia. With Turkey now moving away from secularism, is there a single instance in the world of a democracy successfully withstanding the constant pressures of islam to impose sharia, oppress infidels, and generally adopt policies that we in the West regard as fundamentally undemocratic? Do you really think that the Infidel (U.S.) can impose on a muslim country not just an unfamiliar form of government, but one that over one thousand years of islamic tradition from mohammad himself to the present explicitly reject?

You also speak of winning muslims over a little at a time. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as wishful thinking of the worst sort. When has our good intentions, our good works & goodwill ever won over muslims, the way we won over Germany & Japan after WWII? the kuwaitis? the saudis? the mujahideen in Afghanistan when they expelled the russians, courtesy of our $ & Stingers? and by the way, given their religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taquiyya, how can you tell when you've won a muslim over? As Hugh has noted, as long as the $ flow, iraqis can be somewhat reliable. what happens when the spigot is turned off, as eventually it must be?

counterjihadi:

I'd like to respond to you in a separate post as I'm pressed for time. But in passing, I'll just note that I find your usual closing ("The dust-caked American infantryman in Iraq has "made a difference ... Can we give him some more time?)
is disingenuous. I don't think anyone favoring disengagement has suggested or even implied that we should pull out b/c the American G.I. has failed in his mission, or is not up to the task. The problem is the mission itself. It's misguided, impossibly expensive, and, owing to the open-ended commitment necessary to prop up iraq, inimical to the steatfast determination we will need to muster to defeat islamicism.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at November 8, 2007 11:41 PM

We lost the Iraq war a long time ago, because the ideology that attacked us on 9/11, the ideology that attacked us repeatedly before that, the ideology that declared global war on us anew, has not only never been named as an enemy by our clueless leaders, but has been enshrined in the Iraqi constitution itself.

Even if, by the good works of our soldiers (who are astounding in their steadfastness, generosity, and nobility), the entire remaining civilian population of Iraq is won over to semi-democratic civility, the next generation of fanatical Islamic jihadist robots is today being indoctrinated in the Iraqi Islamic schools and madrassas and mosques, many of which we westerners built or reconstructed for them in order to "win their hearts and minds." So the future in Iraq belongs, by default, to the Cult of Death.

Moreover, our army in Iraq seems to have been transformed from an expeditionary strike force to a long term nation-building occupation force--sort of an anthropology corps. This adaptability is impressive and noteworthy as something only a western army could pull off. But if the doctrines and force structure of the Army take this style as a model for future conflict, it will be disastrous for our country. Aside from the bankrupting cost of long term occupations, such efforts will serve only to protect Dar al-Islam and insure its persistence beyond a natural death in the face of modernity.

We in the West need to stop propping up Dar al-Islam. A nation that declares itself an Islamic state, or puts Islam into its constitution, such as Iraq, is a self-declared perpetual enemy of the West and an enemy of all free men. No carrot and stick approach (or the egregious carrot and bigger carrot approach, as currently used for Iran) should be considered for the Islamic world--only stick and bigger stick. No carrots, ever.

For the long haul, our military forces need to instead be organized to swiftly attack, clean out their nests and forts and command centers, and then leave--no nation building, no more propping up of the Islamic slave empire. In every engagement, the Islamic Ummah must lose something quite tangible and obvious to all observers--territory, assets, military equipment, armies. Thereby, Allah must repeatedly be shown to be the impotent Mohammedan fraud that he is.

Then, to actually win the real war, all funds formerly wasted on occupations and nation building in the Islamic world must be redirected to attacking the ideology of Islam. The ideology of Islam, the Cult of Death, has to die a very public death, and then 1.2 billion slaves in the world will be freed. That is victory.

Posted by: Stendec at November 8, 2007 11:51 PM

Hugh's essential position - that it makes no sense for America to expend her blood and treasure on behalf of Muslims in Iraq, would make a lot more sense if he were not an advocate of America expending blood and treasure on behalf of Muslims in Darfur.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 8, 2007 11:57 PM

Stendec ;

Great post, it states in a few lines the entire working intention of the fight against islam.

Here-Here!

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at November 9, 2007 12:19 AM

"would make a lot more sense if he were not an advocate of America expending blood and treasure on behalf of Muslims in Darfur."
-- from a posting above

1. Staying in Iraq to keep the non-existent country together, in other words to prevent the very thing we should wish to have -- constant (possibly low-level) strife within its former borders, drawing in men, money, and materiel from its neighbors, but especially from Iran and Saudi Arabia, who deserve each other -- makes no sense.

2. Going into the southern Sudan and Darfur, per contra, makes sense. It would not squander resources. It would not require a trillion dollars or 150,000 men, but possibly 5,000 men, and a handful of planes, possibly flying in from Ethiopia, or from aircraft carriers.

It would hardly take much to smash whatever air force the Sudanese government possesses and to promptly kill enough Janjaweed on their horses and camels to end, within a week, any opposition. The populations would be, unlike the Muslim Arabs, friendly -- because we had saved them from the Muslim Arabs. And they would have to stay friendly, because otherwise, if we left, they would be left to those Muslim Arabs.

3. The spectacle of those black Africans greeting their American saviours, who come not to bring this or that political system, but only to stick around to ensure that a referendum can be held, and the result of that referendum is sure to be a splitting up of the artificial state of the Sudan, with the southern, black African part (both Christian and animist) and the western part known as Darfur (nominally Muslim, but with at least some of those Muslims, judging by the reports of conversions to Christianity among Darfur refugees,jettisoning Islam).

4. Unlike the situation in Iraq, where we are squandering resources to attain exactly the wrong goals -- if the goal is rightly defined as weakening the Camp of Islam -- an intervention in the southern Sudan would draw a line that the Arab League would recognize as halting the downard push of Islam. An American presence would hearten the Christians of Ethiopia. It would hearten, in fact, black African Christians everywhere, who need some demonstration of Western support (god knows the Saudis are pouring in money to transform the easygoing, syncretistic practices of local Muslims into something much harsher -- that is, Islam unadorned), having felt betrayed when the West did nothing to help Biafra, while Egyptian pilots strafed Ibo villages killing tens of thousands.

5. Some dramatic move, possibly the one I mention in the Sudan, is necessary if the hoped-for withdrawal takes place -- for it is important to at once disabuse the world's Muslims that they have "triumphed" or sent America packing. Make sure they know that the Americans are no longer going to ensure that "chaos" and "instability" do not threaten the Middle Eastern regimes. We don't have a stake in their "stability" or in the "stability" of the Muslim states or peoples. We have a stake in weakening the hold of Islam on those already in its mental thrall -- working especially to make non-Arab Muslims see, or rather recognize, Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism -- and in making sure the Islamic world is seen, accurately, as the mess, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, that it is, especially by other non-Muslims, those in Western Europe, who need not only to reconnect with the United States (and the Iraq folly and waste keeps the Europeans, and their natural ally and best hope for civilizational survival, America, apart), but to observe Muslim states without the disguised Jizyah of Western foreign aid, or foreign intervention or help of any kind. Let Islamic states and peoples suffer the consequences of Islam, without being constantly aided, bailed out, rescued by the Infidels of the Western world.

That's why a continued American presence in Iraq makes no sense, is senseless, and why a brief and small American presence -- and no "reconstruction" of the southern Sudan or Darfur, please, none of that -- to ensure a referendum on independence from the northern marauding and murdering Arabs can be held. As for money, the oil wealth of Sudan is entirely in the south and, possibly, in Darfur as well. Too bad for the government in Khartoum. Somehow they'll manage. Perhaps Saudi Arabia can give them a stipend - anything that uses up Saudi Arabia's quite undeserved, unnecessary, monstrous, and dangerous wealth, is a Good Thing.

Posted by: Hugh at November 9, 2007 1:45 AM

Stendec-

A second to that.

It's the ideology, not its victims.

Posted by: profitsbeard at November 9, 2007 2:04 AM

Stendec-

A second to that.

It's the ideology, not its victims.

Posted by: profitsbeard at November 9, 2007 2:07 AM

Hugh,
Thanks for your views on Ron Paul.
"I don't think he sees the menace of Islam. He's a Government-Is-Bad man."
He seems to be totally ignorant of the threat, his main argument is that they hate us because US is bombing them. I think O'Reily came closer to asking or asked, whether he would tolerate nuclear Iran, he did not answer clearly.

Posted by: pagan at November 9, 2007 2:24 AM

But Hugh, if we just build them just one more road, or one extra school then they'll love us. Really. It's so important for Infidel troops to give their lives so that Iraqis can experience DemAAAAcracy.

And all you taxpayers out there, it's about time you dug a little deeper into your pockets.

It seems that economics guru, Mr Bush, got his "50 billion tops" estimate a little wrong.

Just a little mind.

Posted by: ewha1 at November 9, 2007 3:24 AM

Stendec wrote:

“For the long haul, our military forces need to instead be organized to swiftly attack, clean out their nests and forts and command centers, and then leave--no nation building, no more propping up of the Islamic slave empire.”

I am really with you on the “swiftly attack, clean out their nests and forts and command centers…” part, but the time proven (and battle proven) strategy is to replace the “Islamic slave empire” with a democratic republic such as our own. The mistake we are making in Iraq and Afghanistan is in not writing their constitutions for them – as we did in Japan and Germany. WE MUST INSIST on a constitution of individual freedom, AT GUNPOINT! To conquer and leave a power vacuum is to leave the job half finished and to invite your enemy to regroup for another round of "festivities".

“In every engagement, the Islamic Ummah must lose something quite tangible and obvious to all observers--territory, assets, military equipment, armies. Thereby, Allah must repeatedly be shown to be the impotent Mohammedan fraud that he is.

Then, to actually win the real war, all funds formerly wasted on occupations and nation building in the Islamic world must be redirected to attacking the ideology of Islam. The ideology of Islam, the Cult of Death, has to die a very public death, and then 1.2 billion slaves in the world will be freed. That is victory.”

You are 100% right on target in this!

Posted by: Davegreybeard at November 9, 2007 4:42 AM

Here we go again...

#1) You make the continued assumption that I've pointed out over and over...that our withdrawal from Iraq might result in something other than such "constant strife"....i.e., a triumph of Iran through its Iraqi proxies or worse, a condominium between the most fanatical of the Sunni and Shia. In other words, there are potential eventualities in your formula that could be much worse than the current realities we face.

#2,3,4,5) HUGH: "...an intervention in the southern Sudan would draw a line that the Arab League would recognize as halting the downard push of Islam"

And you actually believe the Arab League and by extension, the entire Muslim world - fresh on the heels of kicking us out of Iraq - won't perceive this gauntlet you want to throw down in Sudan as something to accept with absolute relish? The Jihad in Iraq will just move to the arid plains of Sudan, America will tire quickly from the protracted fight (just as it has done in Iraq), and regardless of how we're initially received by the locals in Darfur, a segment of their population - being Muslim - will no doubt join the Jihad against us.

As the struggle becomes interminable, will you then advocate withdrawing from Sudan just as you are from Iraq and Afghanistan now? Shall we then leave the locals upon whose behalf we intervened to their tragic fate. Se la vi, eh?

Finally, the mere suggestion that the American public would have any appetite for a new foreign adventure, one where no vital national interests are at stake and coming on the heels of defeat in Iraq, just reveals a disconnect from reality that is just....incomprehensible.

All that notwithstanding, you're still a great read.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 9, 2007 5:03 AM

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=BF4338A6-172B-4ABE-B1B3-18C37E6573CC

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

Posted by: jcom972 at November 9, 2007 5:05 AM

Counterjihadi and Wellington,

You both defend the Iraq war. Yet both, in your comments declare a need for the U.S. to ban muslim immigration into the U.S.

There is something inconsistant about these positions. I am having a difficult time reconciling. Allow me to muse a little.

Neither of you stated a support for a ban on "jihadists", or "radicals", "extremists", or "fundamentalist", or those other misleading terms. You used "muslims" to describe the the types of persons you would actually select, as a group, having one single trait that distinquishes them from all others.

Why would that be that you would ban just "muslims"? That's just rhetorical becusue I think we all know why. Wellington calls Islam "the most monstrous totalitarain ideology of all time". I agree. Many here agree.

But I am confused as to your willingness to select "muslims" so categorically, so clearly as a group, that you think should be excluded from admission to the U.S. while at the same time argue that it is worth the lives and extensive resources of the U.S. to remain in Iraq for the stated mission of propping up a nation that shows every indication of remaining an essential part of that "monstrous totalitarian ideology", part of the dar al Islam, and, a muslim nation. In fact not only will Iraq remain muslim, with sharia law as the legal foundation, Iraq muslims will be free to practice the most extreme and detestable version of Islam. They might as well invite a few Taliban over as consultants to show them how to properly run their new government. Musharaff is now desparately looking for solutions to prevent implementation of sharia law in Pakistan. It is not in the Pakistan constitution (yet), in Iraq, no al-Qaeada or Taliban or other revolutionary group will be necessary. It is already there and we handed it to them.

I am not saying every muslim in Iraq is equally devout. But, if sharia is the law of the land, what defenses do the less devout, the so called "moderate" muslims" have to prevent the harshness of sharia? They have none. They have no legal defenses and they have no religious defenses. It shall be as Allah has willed. Period. Iraq will become another just another enemy of the west. Wellingtons says: we will have to prepare for "... a new Hundred Years War I fear, against the most monstrous totalitarain ideology of all time--.."

I agree. Will the Iraq we leave behind miraculously become neutral party in this hundred years war? Will they be our allies while remaining muslim? Not a chance.

ON banning muslim immigration you know that accepting muslims into the U.S. is an invitation to eventual mayhem. A muslim's loyalty is to Allah, not our man made laws. You know that as soon as they come here and realize they are free to exercise their constitutional right to freely express themselves , to protest, and dissent they will do so and will work toward achieving the ultimate goal of changing from constitutional law to sharia law. You know that this would be their goal and you want no part of facilitating that goal and I , and many others, agree.

Now, what is it about Iraq muslims that is so redeeming, so different, so worth the sacrifice of more lives of U.S. soldiers and billions of U.S dollars, for when we leave, and we will leave some day, we will leave a nation full of those same muslims who you both deem unworthy of admission to this country?

Posted by: USorThem at November 9, 2007 7:54 AM

Daveysgreybeard says:

"The mistake we are making in Iraq and Afghanistan is in not writing their constitutions for them – as we did in Japan and Germany. WE MUST INSIST on a constitution of individual freedom, AT GUNPOINT!"

I see. So we must insist that they embrace western democracy. We force it on them at gunpoint. Or else?

Are you stating that it should become the mission of the U.S. Military to force democracy on all Iraq muslims? Even if they explicitly state that they reject it? Isn't this essentially instituting the complete reform of Islam in the heart of the dar al Islam?

I don't know if you are serious about this proposition if so please explain how that would be accomplished.

This is from Robert's post yesterday on Abu Bakar Bashir who states on Al Aribayah TV:

” The path taken by many political parties in their effort to establish an Islamic regime is not the right path, because these parties adopt democracy. Democracy is not an Islamic means. Democracy runs counter to Islam, because it emphasizes the sovereignty of the people, whereas Islam emphasizes the sovereignty of Allah. Thus, if we are to submit to the law of Allah, Muslims have no choice but to say: ‘We hear and obey.’ In democracy, Allah’s commands may be open to discussion, and if we agree with them, we accept them, but if we do not agree with them, we reject them. Herein lies the flaw. Therefore, as long as the Islamic political parties endeavor to adhere to Islam by means of democracy, they will not achieve their goal."

Do you disagree with Bashir?

Posted by: USorThem at November 9, 2007 8:08 AM

Davegreybeard wrote:

"but the time proven (and battle proven) strategy is to replace the “Islamic slave empire” with a democratic republic such as our own. The mistake we are making in Iraq and Afghanistan is in not writing their constitutions for them – as we did in Japan and Germany. WE MUST INSIST on a constitution of individual freedom, AT GUNPOINT!"

In that statement lies the true disconnect with reality. Islam demands Sharia. Germany and Japan did not have to overcome that obstacle.

Forcing a democracy on a country who's ideology forbids it, is folly. In your view, the end result is constant occupation, not a democratic republic.

It ain't gonna happen Dave. Not as you see it anyway.

Posted by: awake at November 9, 2007 8:38 AM

"The Jihad in Iraq will just move to the arid plains of Sudan..."
-- from a posting above

"Will move"? Where do you think it is right now, as the Arab Muslims of the north, having killed between 1.8 and 2.5 million Christians and animists in the south, and are still stealing their oil, and ignoring most of the provisions of the so-called peace agreement (though renewing their pledge every few months just to keep Westerners minimially satisfied), have moved on to promote Arab supremacism by wiping out, and then driving out, as many of the black Africans in Darfur as the can, those black Africans regarded by the Arabs as inferior or rudimentary or in any case non-Arab Muslims?

Do you think the Americans are so stupid as to enter the Sudan to bring "democracy" to the "ordinary moms and dads" of the Sudan? Do you think they would send, or need, 150,000 or 165,00, troops? Do you think the population would be hostile, or friendly, in the areas they would go into -- not the north, which may indeed be more like Iraq, but Darfur and the south, where they can attack, at will, anyone who attacks them, without this great fear of hurting the "innocent" that so inhibits the American forces in Iraq -- for the civilians will be on their side, really on their side.

The situations are completely different. I repeat: the lesson of Iraq is not that American forces should never again attack a Muslim country. They should never invade, in a large scale, a Muslim country that is united in its opposition to Infidels (planes and missiles and a few special forces can do wonders, as they did on September 6, in northern Syria).

But Sudan is not, not completely, a Muslim country. It has a large Christian and animist popuolation in the south, where the country's oil wealth is located. It has a large black African population, "Muslim" but also the victims of mass murder and race-hatred from the true-blue Arab Muslims sponsored by the Khartoum government. of race-hatred and mass-murder to ever again attack a Muslim force. It is to choose carefully, where and when and how the application of force -- not this almost five-year crazed effort in Iraq, that should have ended no later than the first months of 2004 (after Saddam Hussein had been captured, his sons killed, his main supporters rounded up in that game of Fifty-Two Pickup, and David Kay having assured himself that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq, and all such potential programs had been destroyed, not least by dispersing, in different ways, the scientists who might participate in them). No reconstruction in Sudan, nothing but ensuring that the black Africans in the south and Darfur can vote on independence from the Arabs.

Do you doubt the outcome of that vote? And if American oil companies are invited in to further develop resources, and the Chinese booted out by whatever strongman or junta takes over, because of the Chinese support up to now for the Arab government in Khartoum -- well, that's too bad, isn't it?

Posted by: Hugh at November 9, 2007 9:17 AM

@Davegreybeard: "... but the time proven (and battle proven) strategy is to replace the “Islamic slave empire” with a democratic republic such as our own"

That solution is based on our own ideology. But the controlling force in the Islamic world is Islamic ideology, which is infused in every person via incessant indoctrination from birth.

Installing a democratic republic at the point of gun might possibly work in a superficial way, at great cost, for one generation. But this marginally successful outcome would require our forces (or some foreign forces) to remain there, at great expense and human cost, for a whole generation in order to keep that new government from being overthrown outright or otherwise consumed by incremental Islamic encroachments. That is what is going on in Iraq now (except that Islam is already installed as a potent poison pill permanently embedded in their constitution).

But since the mosques and madrassas are zealously and without restraint indoctrinating the next generation of Mohammedans, the inevitable long term result will be the stragulation of any republican experiment, the "purifying" of the population from infidel influence and dissent, and replacement of secular law by totalitarian Islamic sharia. There is a consistent 1400-year record of "success" for this cancerous and relentless Islamic strategy.

Instead of basing our own strategy on direct propagation of western ideology, which is simply impractical economically, our strategy (and tactics) for dealing with the Islamic world must be based on properly discrediting the Islamic ideology. As a general rule, it is best that the Mohammedans be forced to sleep in the bed they made for themselves. In making this happen, we need to be sure to explain to them (and to all international observers) at every opportunity, that their inevitable misery, backwardness, and defeat is directly caused by their following the teachings of the morally abhorrent 7th century brigand Mohammed and his self-serving and phony creation, Allah.

More generally, whenever the Mohammedans attack, they must lose something. Whenever the Mohammedans threaten or bully, there must be a tangible economic loss, never a reward. Most of all, whenever Mohammdans lie, they must be exposed and ridiculed.

Posted by: Stendec at November 9, 2007 10:00 AM

".. weakening the forces of Jihad..." Let's be upfront and sya the weakening of Islam, because that is waht we truly are fighting. So long as we differentiate between the "cause of Jihad" and Muslims, we will continue to lose the struggle. We fought WWII not by saying fighting the cause of some ism but by killing those who practiced or were part of the larger society of that ism - Japanese and Germans. In the immortal words of Admiral Bull Halsey: "Kill Japs, Kill Japs, Kill MOre Japs." But even here at JW, we split hairs about which Muslims are worth saving and not. If the the one common thread that ties all these people from Iraq to Sudan is Islam then isn't that what we should be trying to destroy? Seems there are a lot of Black African Muslims from Somalia in this country as refugees and based upon their actions in Minnesota and elsewhere, don't seem too appreciative of our efforts since 1993 when they refuse taxi service to a blind person with a service dog.

And although this Administration has earned much of the criticism it receives here on a daily basis, does anyone really believe anyone else in any party would behave different? How many times did (Bill) Clinton meet with Arafat at the White House to broker some peace deal? Billions of dollars have been wasted/spent in Iraq, but what of the billions to the "Palestinians", Egypt, etc? And this has been going on for decades. Or our treatment of the Shah under Jimmy Carter (D)- Khomeini wasn't even asking for free elections in Iran - he just wanted to return and we caved. Bush and company may have many things wrong about the struggle with "Jihad"; mainly not being honest about what we are fighting, but I would rather have Bush in the White House than Hillary(they're picking on me 'cause I'm a girl) or Barack Obama (I'm going to meet face-to-face with every dictator...)

Posted by: HOV Dummy at November 9, 2007 10:55 AM

"And although this Administration has earned much of the criticism it receives here on a daily basis, does anyone really believe anyone else in any party would behave different?"
-- from a posting above

1. This is a Tu-Quoque argument. They are all utterly inept, so let us forgive Bush and company their ineptness. No one should 'scape whipping. It is the current Administration, and no other, that has spent, quite unnecessarily, a trillion dollars. It could have left Iraq in early 2004. It could never have engaged in all that naive and messianic Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations talk and hopefulness, had Bush not been saved by his own Personal Salvation Tale and hence deeply impressed with the idea of "religion," had Wolfowitz and company not been so deeply impressed with their Arab, especially Iraqi-Shi'a-in-exile, friends and informations, as well as with themselves, and so unaware of their own ignorance about Islam, about the prospects or even benefits -- for us, for Americans, for non-Muslims everywhre -- to be achieved from that unlikely goal of spreading "freedom" (meaning that purple-thumbed business that only a few at the time saw as meaning far less than the cheerleaders of the Adminstration did, though they have muted their enthusiasm of late) to benighted Iraq. Contrary to the belief of some, Ahmad Chalabi, Kanan Makiya, and Rend al-Rahim Francke are no more representative of "Iraqi" masses than were Andrey Sakharov and Elena Bonner of the masses in the Soviet Union, as that concatention of countries now reverts, with a few remarkable exceptions, to likely despotic type.

The Administration deserves all kinds of criticisms. Look at those Iftar dinners. Look at Karen Hughes, who was told she was to "win" over Muslims -- we don't need to "win" them over. They need to persuade us, if they can, that they should not be regarded by Infidels as a permanent threat, and part of that explanation, the main part, should be a discussion of what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira. All else is smiles and wiles. And how did she "win" them over, or attempt to? By that batty bomfoggery (Brotherhood-of-Man-Fatherhood-of-God) that causes so many to lose their footing in the swamp of sentimentality that engulfs us -- a sentimentality perhaps captured best in that moment, in Bush's Second Inaugural, when he pointed to an Iraqi girl sitting next to a Marine in the audience, for all the world like a television host on some pop-psychology show pointing out someone in the audience who had "shed her addiction" and for whom the audience offers enthusiastic applause.

It's all on that level.

Basta.

Posted by: Hugh at November 9, 2007 11:16 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/09/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at November 9, 2007 11:34 AM

Never fear, our CIC is all smiles:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492663&in_page_id=1811

(caution: photos of severely wounded troops)

you know, one measure of the futility of iraq is that the time from the Battle of Kasserine Pass in distant North Africa, where Rommel kicked the ass of green US troops, until we returned the favor at the Battle of the Bulge just beyond the German border, was around 1 1/2 years. Meanwhile, here we are in iraq over 4 years after toppling saddam still trying to get the situation under control. Some of you will point toward the progress we've been making, defeating al qaeda in iraq, and all that. but as Hugh has pointed out, despite what bush said about the threat of AQI taking over iraq, AQI was never a real threat to take over iraq. the kurds wouldn't have it; the sunnis would't have it; and the shiites wouldn't have it. no, after 4+ years of trying to make it work, I'm tired of the US playing Charlie Brown to iraq's Lucy, who always managed to pull that football away just as CB was about to kick it.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at November 9, 2007 11:49 AM

We've already lost the war! Thing is, the general news media is in cahoots with the gov and military heads, here - AND is NOT telling the common people here.

No body want to hear the truth,but we've already lost the war - at the cost of hundred's of thousands, if not millions, of lives, on both sides.

Truth is, Iran already has nuclear plants. If we want to continue a war, if we want it to spread - which it is already doing - with Syria and Lebanon already involved - if we want to continue a war - AT WHAT COST? World War III - AT WHAT COST?

Posted by: allat at November 9, 2007 12:08 PM

You see, I'm an American - I'm on the side of liberty and freedom - I enjoy being a wild, woman Amazon - but I also have an overview of the picture.

The only thing left now is to :

1- Negotiate for what we can get.
2- Retire from the field, to recooperate and strenghten ourselves again to plan - another way - to defend ourselves.

The way we're doing both in the U.S. and in Iraq is NOT working, the "Surge" in IRan has failed - why else do you think there is no news coming to us, as re. the war, why do you think the news is only stupid things like Britney running over the foot of the paparazzi, and such?

The way we're going with allowance of immigration and multi-culturalism is surely a drainage to freedom.

The war can no longer with with the military personnel here and abroad, the war can no longer be with the police force here, but now the common people have to get together to stop the nonsense here. In all ways.

Posted by: allat at November 9, 2007 12:18 PM

This is an amazing thread. White House and Congress take notes because it won't be long before the American median voter finally gets it, hopefully by November 08.

This democratization of dar al-islam idea in all its variants and scales of course is monumental folly. For more than 13 centuries and including the present generation, Muslims have universally made their final and immutable choice between democracy and shari'a, the two most incompatible ideologies that have ever existed in all of human history. So in reference to all the comments on this thread that proceed from that verity I say, "yeah, what he said."

As for how to step into the reality of the "Hundred Years War", I support the idea of returning to the strategy and tactics of our ancestors: confine the social, economic and political morass that Islam inherently generates to the most inhospitable environments on the planet where it mostly dwells anyway, and run around its perimeter with cannons to keep it confined. When it occasionally attempts to push out its boundaries then do exactly what our ancestors did, pound the genie of jihad back into its bottle with extreme prejudice and in memory of Theo van Gogh, pin a note to the edge of the smoldering crater that we will be back to repeat the exercise if they try to export their hate again.

Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at November 9, 2007 12:30 PM

Despite what Bush and Blair and Cheney and Lord West say, when they all attempt to be grimly, tough-mindedly "realistic," and tell us that this (still inadequately described) will last, oh, "30 years" or "a generation," they are not being grimly tough-minded enough. In fact, the war of self-defense against Jihad -- a notion, a duty, that has no sell-by date -- must go on forever. And because of that, resources must be carefully husbanded, not squandered -- resources of men, money, materiel, and perhaps at this point most important, of morale, both civilian and miliatry.

The Jihad is forever. It has fallen into desuetude in the past, but only when the would-be victims of Jihad proved too strong. But the OPEC trillions will not stop flowing. The Muslim millions now settled deep within the West, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, are there, even if migration is halted, and will remain, breeding at fantastic rates compared to the indigenous Infidels, unless much stronger measures are taken. And the texts, the immutable texts, the Qur'an (the uncreated Word of God, not to be tampered with), the Hadith, the Sira, remain as they have been, and thus a perpetual source of inculcated hatred for the Infidel.

How to husband Infidel, and especially overtaxed (in every sense) American resources, and where and how to deploy certain of those resources but not necessarily all of them, is the big question. I've offered answers to that question a few hundred times at this website, but am prepared to keep doing it, another few hundred times.

In the first place, recognize not merely terrorism but all the instruments of Jihad. Identify, for example, the instrument of the Money Weapon. Then realize that, in the short term, that is at once, Saudi Arabia must simply be stopped from sending money abroad to pay for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa. If Muslims in London or Boston want a mosque, they will have to pay for it themselves. If they want to hire lawyers to attack and intimidate those who dare to raise certain questions, let none of the money come from deep-pocketed Arabs and Muslims abroad. We can threaten the Saudis, but that will only be done by those who realize that the Saudis do not have the power that some, parroting a party line carefully established by Western hirelings of the Saudis, want us to believe they have. They rely on us for medical care, education, for supplying the workers that allow them to pump and distribute that oil, and of course, in the end, to protect the lives, the sacred fortunes, and the dishonor of those dagger-and-dishdasha double-tier-goateed primitives, with their sneers of cold command. They have to sell their oil. It's all they've got. We, any time we wish, can simply tax gasoline, tax oil, make that oil as expensive as we wish, and dampen demand, and use that revenue to subsidize other forms of energy (nuclear, solar, you name it) and mass transit, and all kinds of good things. And there is nothing the Saudis can do about it. We just have to see the sitatuion as it really is. Furthermore, we can find out what illiquid assets they possess in the West, and we can seize those assets -- and they should have that ability made known to them. They have gotten away with murder, or at least the world-wide encouragement of murder, and that has to stop,and can be stopped. In a longer term, all efforts made to get off oil naturally tend to diminish Saudi revenues, and are to be encouraged. Finally, the oil-less Arabs and Muslims need to have the staggering sums taken in by the Saudis brought home to them, and to the rest of what used to be called "the Third World," every day, in every way. Never let it be forgotten for a minute, whenever there are requests for aid from Uncle Sap, that the Saudis take in, without the slightest effort on their part, a billion dollars a day, and that their investments in the West must amount to hundreds of billions of dollars (some of it hidden with dummy, or possibly U.A.E., ownership -- because the Saudis know that the "United Arab Emirates" does not cause quite the alarm that "Saudi Arabia" does -- though it should). Make sure that the Muslims no longer come hat in hand to the West; turn them down; cut off that Jizyah that the American government seems so fearful of cutting off once it has started to give it, to Egypt, to Pakistan, or if it temporarily shuts off the spigot, strains to turn it on again as soon as plausibly possible, as with the outwardly less menacing "Slow Jihadists" of Fatah, paert of the menacing shock-troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel so carefully renamed, for Western consumption, the "Palestinian" people.

Husband those resourcs. Stop the waste in Iraq and Afghanistan. Exploit those pre-existing fissures, ethnic, sectarian, economic. Make life as difficult for the Camp of Islam as possible, and make sure that Infidels come to realize that the failures, now so self-evident, of the Islamic peoples and states and would-be polities, their inability to create, despite the most fantastic unearned wealth, modern economies, their inability to create true democracies that will last and that can withstand the constant pressure of Islam, their social failures, their intellectual stasis or paralysis, all this should be related directly to Islam itself. It may have propagandistic value, but it is not, in essence, propaganda. It is the truth.

Posted by: Hugh at November 9, 2007 1:09 PM

sheik yer booty: Thanks for your post. The reason I wrote what I did is because at least for now I think a "divide and conquer" strategy should be pursued. Look, I count myself as second to none in distaste for Islam, but many Muslims worldwide are just ordinary folks IN SPITE OF their religion. These can be used by us, I believe, against the Islamic fruitcakes who really, truly take to heart all the nonsense found in Islam. As the great power we have obligations and duties, whether we like it or not (and most of the time I personally don't like it and think America far too good for most of the rest of the world), which are necessary to act upon, not only for our benefit but also for others more or less aligned with us, whether Japan, Britain, Australia, etc. This is not saccharine Johnny Appleseed stuff, but rather the stuff that realpolitik is made of.

Democracy aside and our attempt to plant it elsewhere (which we have done a pretty damn good job of doing by fits and starts in places like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Germany), I do not think the United States can create a kind of Festung America and ignore most every nation. The great power from time immemorial has had to go where the trouble is to keep the world on a steady course. Many Romans were loathe to venture into the eastern Mediterranean from as early as the late third century B.C., but eventually Rome had to do so because of instability there, which at least indirectly threatened Rome itself. That's why Scipio Africanus was in Asia Minor around 190 B.C. dealing with a too ambitious Seleucid monarch, Antiochus III, or why Pompey was there dealing with the Pontian king, Mithradates, over a century later. Ditto for the British Empire time and time again. In order to defeat radical Islam, I see us for decades and decades having to go where Islamic bastards make trouble----and that will be many places. Sometimes we'll be able to pick and choose our spot, othertimes we will not. Why not, though, while we're at it, attempt to bring democracy to just a country or two (like Iraq) on the chance it might take and win out over Islamic thinking? We don't have to try to spread democracy to every Muslim nation; one would be a victory here (especially if it could be done along the lines of Ataturk's approach with Islam being marginalized as much as possible, though even here constant vigilance will be necessary as what is going on now in Turkey proves only too well). And I ask you this: What do you think would be the consequences of leaving Iraq forthwith? We're there. Might as well fignt the terrorists on that ground than elsewhere. I hope you're not naive enough to think that even if we left all of the Middle East, then the American military wouldn't have to be engaged against a significant portion of the Muslim world.

A "divide and conquer" stategy might fail. In that case, we will have to wage war on the entire Islamic population of the world. I see that as a distinct possibility-----the ultimate struggle in man's history. But for now, I would argue it is less costly (although still horrifically expensive as you correctly pointed out) to wage war on a part of the Muslim world rather than all of it. If not Iraq, where? If not Afghanistan, where? By the way, I write this with respect. I have enjoyed many of your posts and think we are in agreement on much. Take care.

Posted by: Wellington at November 9, 2007 2:02 PM

Hugh and counterjihadi:

You have both written superb posts.

I think that this is one of the most incisive and important articles I have read on JW.

If only Hugh's contributions were compulsory reading for the Bush inner circle and for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Cabinet.

Posted by: moris2 at November 9, 2007 2:17 PM

"Many Romans were loathe to venture into the eastern Mediterranean from as early as the late third century B.C., but eventually Rome had to do so because of instability there, which at least indirectly threatened Rome itself."

---------"Rome wasn't loathe to venture anywhere -they controlled Mauretania - from present Morocco to Egypt. And if there was instatiblity, they, Romans) certainly brought in Pax Romana, at least during the time, they were homogenous.

" That's why Scipio Africanus was in Asia Minor around 190 B.C. dealing with a too ambitious Seleucid monarch, Antiochus III, or why Pompey was there dealing with the Pontian king, Mithradates, over a century later"

Islam didn't come into existence until c. mid-7th cent. - Arabs were contained in their land - weren't even unified - didn't surge out of Arabia until then.

Posted by: allat at November 9, 2007 3:06 PM

Hugh:

"Tu-Quoque" - I had to look that up as I lack your intellectual gifts. One last comment about what I wrote above. I'm not saying that Bush and Company should not be criticized or given a pass just because other administrations were just as incompetent. Believe me, the entire Karen Hughes (and her predecessor - some bigtime PR person) fiasco at State irks me as well. I just don't see anyone in the political realm in this country acting any different when it comes to our national policy. The only difference might be we withdraw behind our two oceans and draw the blinds. Either way, the threat of Islam will still be there.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at November 9, 2007 3:11 PM

USorThem wrote:

“Democracy runs counter to Islam, because it emphasizes the sovereignty of the people, whereas Islam emphasizes the sovereignty of Allah. Thus, if we are to submit to the law of Allah, Muslims have no choice but to say: ‘We hear and obey.’ In democracy, Allah’s commands may be open to discussion, and if we agree with them, we accept them, but if we do not agree with them, we reject them. Herein lies the flaw. Therefore, as long as the Islamic political parties endeavor to adhere to Islam by means of democracy, they will not achieve their goal."

Do you disagree with Bashir?”

I DO agree with Bashir. Which is why we must INSIST on democracy wherever we have “boots on the ground”. It is “boots on the ground” that are necessary to have the ability to insist.

The inherent “questioning” of leadership, which is an integral part of democracy, will do its part to weaken Islam and gain converts to our side. We need to stick around long enough to make sure the locals do not misuse their new democracy and allow Islam to regain total control.

Awake wrote:
““WE MUST INSIST on a constitution of individual freedom, AT GUNPOINT!"

In that statement lies the true disconnect with reality. Islam demands Sharia. Germany and Japan did not have to overcome that obstacle.

Forcing a democracy on a country who's ideology forbids it, is folly. In your view, the end result is constant occupation, not a democratic republic.

It ain't gonna happen Dave. Not as you see it anyway.”

Go back and read the history of WWII. Study carefully the ideologies of Imperial Japan and Supremacist Germany prior to this conflict. Honestly consider the millions of lives of their own countrymen that both of these countries willingly sacrificed in pursuit of their ideological goals.

Now really and honestly reflect on the FACT that both of these fanatically anti democratic nations were brought to democracy at the point of a gun.

The path to success has already been shown to us. We must take this path one more time – or submit to Allah.

Stendec wrote:
“Instead of basing our own strategy on direct propagation of western ideology, which is simply impractical economically, our strategy (and tactics) for dealing with the Islamic world must be based on properly discrediting the Islamic ideology. As a general rule, it is best that the Mohammedans be forced to sleep in the bed they made for themselves. In making this happen, we need to be sure to explain to them (and to all international observers) at every opportunity, that their inevitable misery, backwardness, and defeat is directly caused by their following the teachings of the morally abhorrent 7th century brigand Mohammed and his self-serving and phony creation, Allah.

More generally, whenever the Mohammedans attack, they must lose something. Whenever the Mohammedans threaten or bully, there must be a tangible economic loss, never a reward. Most of all, whenever Mohammdans lie, they must be exposed and ridiculed. “

No and yes. We must discredit Islam as you so clearly describe but it must be replaced with a democratic form of government. To do otherwise is to allow the possibility of Islam filling the political vacuum that we have just created.

“In order to defeat radical Islam, I see us for decades and decades having to go where Islamic bastards make trouble----and that will be many places. Sometimes we'll be able to pick and choose our spot, other times we will not. Why not, though, while we're at it, attempt to bring democracy to just a country or two (like Iraq) on the chance it might take and win out over Islamic thinking? We don't have to try to spread democracy to every Muslim nation; one would be a victory here

If not Iraq, where? If not Afghanistan, where? By the way, I write this with respect. I have enjoyed many of your posts and think we are in agreement on much. Take care. “

Posted by: Wellington

Well said and right to the point as usual, Wellington

Posted by: Davegreybeard at November 9, 2007 3:23 PM

UsorThem: Thanks for your post and sorry it took so long to respond. I think it perfectly understandable that you would look upon my wanting us to ban Muslim immigration to America and support for continuing the Iraq War as inconsistent (although I think greater ruthlessness a la Grant and Sherman on our part is necessary). So I don't repeat myself, which I'm too easily wont to do, see my post above to sheik yer booty for part of my thinking here. But here's the other part: America and the West are in a struggle like no other in history. It was bad enough when we were up against secular totalitarian ideologies lie Nazism and Communism, but Islam is the ultimate totalitarian ideology, what I have termed before here at JW the "perfect storm" of totalitarianism. Islam hides behind its religious veil and it also has some good elements in it derived from Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity (e.g., forgiveness of human wrongdoing by the deity and charitable giving); both of these features provide it excellent cover. But it is still quite rotten, very totalitarian (and no other religion is). Therefore, we must fight it on numerous fronts and, I'm grieved to say, for a very long time to come. But just because I want to pursue a "divide and conquer" strategy for the time being doesn't mean I'll ever look upon the Islamic blueprint as benign. Therefore, we must ban all Muslim immigration to America while fighting with and supporting some Muslims against other Muslims. If the objection is, well, we didn't do this with other totalitarians like Nazis and Marxists (maybe a little with someone like Tito), my reply would be that this situation is unique because Islam is uniquely malevolent.

And Iraqi Muslims are not special or different. They're about the same as others in the Muslim world, though perhaps a bit better educated and sophisticated than many of their Islamic brethren, but they're as good as the next bunch to fight with (particularly the Kurds) against other Mohammedans. Again, divide and conquer. If this fails, then it's Armageddon as we take on the entire Muslim world. Thanks again for your input. It was perfectly reasonable and well stated.

Posted by: Wellington at November 9, 2007 3:49 PM

allat: Gee, did you really think I didn't know that Arabs were confined to the Arabian peninsula until the seventh century A.D.? I was making a point about power politics with my references to Rome and the British Empire. By the way, many Romans, including numerous Senators, were indeed hesitant to acquire more territory. They thought it would be more trouble than it was worth (which often proved to be the case). That was one of the reasons why Pompey's request for annexation of his conquests in the East was denied him by the Roman Senate (the other was personal dislike and suspicion of Pompey). Pompey then responded to this by joining Caesar and Crassus, all of whom wanted something, in forming the First Triumvirate in 60 B.C.

Posted by: Wellington at November 9, 2007 4:03 PM

Wellington:

"...assert their humanity over their wretched religion."

Well said. In Anbar Province, they are. They have spent three years staring Islamic totalitarianism in the face. They are indeed Muslims, but they know the abyss when they see it.

That is the fulcrum.

Posted by: counterjihadi at November 9, 2007 4:27 PM

Islam must be tamed from within. Until that time I agree with SaracensAtTheGates that the best strategy is to confine it to the backwater regions from which it arose.

Unlike Christianity, reforming Islam requires a figure to arise who must assume for himself an authority equal to that of Muhammad and survive. The Western Age of Enlightenment and Reformation did not require an equal to the founder of Christianity to succeed because the Christian canonical texts are considered to be "inspired" rather than delivered verbatim from the mouth of God so there was plenty of wiggle room to openly engage in critical thought and public dialogue.

I know of only two persons in the history of Islam who have achieved even a slight modicum of success in this regard, the founders of the Babi and Bahai sects in the 19th century. I say "success" because there are significant numbers of their followers still alive, though not well, in the Muslim world. Most of the followers of the Babi sect have been absorbed by the Bahai movement so it might be fair to say that only the Bahai community could be considered a success.

It is still too early to know if these sects, especially the Bahai movement, will ultimately achieve the critical mass necessary to permanently neutralize the doctrine of jihad and gender apartheid within the Islamic world. Assuming that movements like the Bahais survive, it may be several centuries to achieve it.

So there is ample reason to hope that it can be accomplished but not in one generation nor perhaps even in one century. Aside from the "running around the edges with cannons" idea, we in the West can play a sort of inverse da'wah game by providing resources to Bahai communities around the world and political and economic support to the beleaguered Bahai communities within the Islamic world. For every mosque the Saudis build in the dar al-harb, the West could funnel resources to the Bahais to build another school in the dar al-islam or whatever else they need to carry on their mission. The Muslims have their own fifth column in the West, sects like the Bahais can be one of our own in dar al-islam.

Posted by: DrMack at November 9, 2007 4:36 PM

Davegreybeard said

Go back and read the history of WWII. Study carefully the ideologies of Imperial Japan and Supremacist Germany prior to this conflict.

The ideology of Supremacist Germany was based on Hitler's Mein Kampf written after WWI, a few decades earlier. Islam is based on Mohammad's (the Perfect Man, the Example for All Time, the final holy Prophet) holy Qur'an, the direct word of Allah to his slaves, written 1,350 years ago. Nazi ideology was very ephemeral, borne of the humiliation of their loss in WWI and the reparations that were forced upon them. You can get the German people to admit that Hitler was wrong alot easier than getting Muslims to admit that Mohammad was wrong. You're asking the Muslims to choose between Allah/Mohammad and Washington/Payne/Jefferson/apple pie/baseball/MTV/Chevrolet, who do you think they'll choose? You're asking the Muslims to agree that the entire regulation of every facet of their lives for the past 1000+ years has just been one big mistake? That their father, and grandfather, and great-grandfather and so on for another 500 generations were all stupidly fooled into believing the rantings of a pedophilic and delusional warlord? Germany gave us Martin Luther, Immanuel Kant, and many others who created the ideological foundation for the religious and political developments that came in the past few centuries. What reforms or advances has Islam allowed, in religious, artistic, or scientific thought? In fact, Islam has specifically outlawed these, under penalty of apostasy (and we all know what that means).

Honestly consider the millions of lives of their own countrymen that both of these countries willingly sacrificed in pursuit of their ideological goals.

Muslims believe that being killed while in battle with the non-believers grants them immediate and eternal entry into Paradise at the side of Allah. They don't consider that to be a sacrifice.

One recurring question: Why do you care so much about what Muslims believe, or how they live their lives in their own countries?

It seems to me that our problem is their behavior towards non-believers, which leads to a different set of solutions than getting inside their heads and changing their thought process. Their thoughts are not the same as ours, simply with the Christian God replaced with Allah. They have a very different mindset than we do. Their goals and attitudes and assumptions about how the world works are very different than ours. It's not a matter of a tweak here or there; their entire world-view is based on the Qur'an and ahadith.

I have zero doubts that our armed men and women could militarily defeat every Muslim-majority nation in the world, and much more easily and quickly than we defeated Germany and Japan in WWII. But then what? You assume that they'll then suddenly love us, and adopt our values. But we've had several examples now, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, where the Muslims were militarily defeated, and yet their beliefs were not changed.

Posted by: special_guest at November 9, 2007 4:46 PM

Davegreybeard wrote,

"... We must discredit Islam as you so clearly describe but it must be replaced with a democratic form of government. To do otherwise is to allow the possibility of Islam filling the political vacuum that we have just created."

As DrMack and Special_guest discussed, the ideology of Islam is special, and requires a special strategy. It is not like Nazism or Communism or Japanese imperalism, which although virulent, valued their imperial holdings. Mohammedans seek death--first, the death of individual identity, then the death of spirit, then physical death fighting in the cause of Allah.

As special_guest wrote, the pressure to change (to a liberal democracy or other form of civilized government) must come from within. We cannot force them to change their beliefs by stationing a platoon of enforcers on every street corner for a few centuries. We must demonstrate to them, and constantly and pointedly tell them to their collective face, that their beliefs are wrong.

They believe that Islam will conquer the entire earth for Allah. They must lose territory in every contest for territory.

They believe that Allah will stand behind them to insure victory in every battle, as long as they are sufficiently pious. They must lose badly in every engagement.

They believe that Allah will provide booty and jizya in this world as their reward for piety. They must never get any jizya of any kind from us, and any booty they run off with should be confiscated and returned to its owners, or else demolished in a punitive raid.

They believe that they will be victorious through terror. Any terror attack they pull off should result in retaliation times ten--their victory will consist of piles of smoking rubble.

They believe they can assassinate those who criticize Islam or Mohammed. Western agents should hunt down the imams who put out death fatwas and personally dispatch them to hell.

They believe the Mohammed was the perfect man. They should be reminded daily of his barbaric crimes--in books, movies, and media broadcasts.

They believe that by their beliefs they are superior to all other beings, and that we therefore owe them the utmost respect. They must be constantly reminded that the opposite is clearly true, and that no respect will be forthcoming--ever.

And so on.

Posted by: Stendec at November 9, 2007 5:59 PM

special_guest: I write in defense of what Davegreybeard was alleging, though I concede you made a strong case as well. Nazi ideology didn't arise only out of the ashes of WWI but also from a long tradition of militarism, anti-Semitism and even hostility to much of Western Civilization itself, the last due to the distinction the Germans drew between culture (good) and civilization (bad). This distinction adopted by the Teutons is brilliantly summed up by Paul Johnson in chapter three of his majesterial work, Modern Times, still for me the single greatest one-volume history of the twentieth century ever written.

You are correct in assuming that extirpating all or most of the rot in Islam will be exceedingly difficult, admittedly more so than getting the Germans (and Japanese too, another brilliant but blindly ethnocentric people) to come into the modern world, but I think the gap between the two is not as wide as you think. And I don't believe Davegreybeard ever said it would be easy to democratize at least part of the Muslim world. It will probably be the hardest, most difficult democratization effort of all time precisely for the reasons you stated, but shouldn't we try? Even a handful of Muslim countries functioning along the lines of Lebanon before 1975 (or Ataturk's Turkey until the last several years) would prevent the Muslim world from becoming a monstrous monolith, act as an inspiration for other Muslim nations to emulate and give the entire West much more breathing space, maneuverability and safety. I'm not talking about a wonderful solution; I'm saying that this approach is arguably the least bad option we face before us. I believe this was Davegreybeard's point, though he can obviously best speak to this.

Posted by: Wellington at November 9, 2007 6:04 PM

On the Jihad "moving to Sudan"...

Yes, it has been 23 years since Sudan's civil war (Jihad) reignited, but Saudi largess notwithstanding, it has been an indigenous effort. Should America introduce combat troops into the equation, every Tom, Dick and Ahmad from around the Muslim world will take up the banner and Sudan will become the new epicenter of global Jihad.

HUGH: "I repeat: the lesson of Iraq is not that American forces should never again attack a Muslim country. They should never invade, in a large scale, a Muslim country that is united in its opposition to Infidels."

RESPONSE: Spurious logic. Iraq was never "united in its opposition to infidels." The Kurds wanted us in, most of the Shia too.

You seem so eager to intervene, but are uninterested in the aftermath. I repeat, what happens to the people in Sudan we came to help once you've decided we've had enough and should leave?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 9, 2007 8:03 PM

Hugh, our military will not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Not for at least another decade, and not after all the blood, sweat and tears we spent putting ourselves the way we are over there. Instead, militaries from various Western nations will be strengthening their footholds and positions inside both nations in times to come.

It is no accident the way our pieces are set up on the gameboard over there. The intentions behind those who moved our pieces to be the way they are is obvious. Iran, and quite possibly Syria, are probably going to the hospital someday. Read the cards the military has dealt to those in the region. One can think and say whatever, we should do this, we should do that, but look at what is actually happening. All the past bluster from the Democrats didn't, couldn't stop forward motion with our military guys.

I'm not saying maybe they are, the military guys are setting US up for a future confrontation with Iran.

Hugh, Stendec, guess who's next after Syria/Iran are down?

I sure hope Musharraf finds the right words to say to all those opposition lawyers, and they move to gut the heavy influence of that religion of theirs.

Forget any thoughts that we are or should leave that area anytime in the near future. Trust me, it's not going to happen.

Posted by: mergatroid at November 9, 2007 8:07 PM

Cornelius: Good post. While I have come to respect Hugh's extensive knowledge of Islam and many of his judgments, I have also been chagrined at times at his impatience with our "activities" in part of the Muslim world. Good things, especially very good things like democracy, usually happen slowly. Hell, we're still in Japan and Germany more than sixty years after WWII. Russia under Putin is regressing to typical xenophobic, paranoid (and stupid) behavior and so patience with many of the descendants of Kievan Rus will have to continue until they realize that we're not out to get them. China retains a chip on its national shoulder for what happened to it in the nineteenth century and seems determined to assert its greatness at the expense of others------freedom, the United States and a respect for the integrity of the individual be damned. So it is with the Islamic world, except doubly or triple so.

Virtually everyone who posts here knows that Islam is rotten to the core. The variance in informed opinion comes with what to do about this. One contingent says the hell with all Muslims------all Mohammedans are hopeless. The other group, to which I belong, wants to win over some Muslims to the cause of true freedom and tolerance, in spite of their appalling religion, on the assumption that one's humanity can trump blind belief in many instances. Hugh, I believe, is in the former camp. I am in the latter. Those with my convictions comprehend that patience is indeed a virtue. Those opposed to someone like me have concluded, understandably but not correctly I would contend, that virtually all Muslims are hopeless. The debate here at JW continues and I, for one, think it is a highly ethical, deeply philosophical, debate motivated by the best of intentions by most everyone. This is the finest forum I have ever posted at and I thank Robert Spencer above all for this. And Hugh, if you have read this post of mine, know that I have a very high opinion of you, even though I think you mistaken on a minority of your positions. I have no doubt the debate will continue. I for one welcome it.

Posted by: Wellington at November 9, 2007 8:40 PM

Wellington,

sorry for the delay in responding. you wrote:

"As the great power we have obligations and duties, whether we like it or not (and most of the time I personally don't like it and think America far too good for most of the rest of the world), which are necessary to act upon, not only for our benefit but also for others more or less aligned with us, whether Japan, Britain, Australia, etc."

I guess I didn't make this clear. I'm not suggesting that we withdraw to fortress America & pull up the drawbridge. only that whenever we deploy resources, especially military ones, we do so after a sort of cost/benefit analysis unburdened by any sentimentality or wishful thinking. no more Wolfowitz-isms that the war will practically pay for itself. Yes, the benefit of establishing a true democracy in iraq to our struggle against islamic jihad would be great. but you gotta admit, it's a long shot, & the costs have been & will continue to be astronomical. Darfur, by contrast, appears to me to have a pretty favorable cost/benefit profile. I don't pretend to know much about the situation there, but if the muslims, on the one hand, & the Christians/animists, on the other, live in separate geographic regions, it would seem that the requisite military assts would be minimal, perhaps just a couple AC-130 gunships, which could wipe out the janjaweed whenever they move on open terrain. Cornelius raises a fair point that US involvement in Darfur would attract jihadists from around the world, just as it has in iraq. But the US would put relatively few boots on the ground (fewer than 1,000?) & they wouldn't be patrolling urban areas where they are easy targets for roadside bombs & suicide bombers.

You also wrote:

"In order to defeat radical Islam, I see us for decades and decades having to go where Islamic bastards make trouble----and that will be many places. Sometimes we'll be able to pick and choose our spot, othertimes we will not."

I agree. And that is why we should prepare to leave iraq now. if we keep our 150,000 soldiers in iraq as long as you believe we should, how can we possibly fight a second iraq-type war, even one that is unquestionably necessary? since we don't have unlimited amounts of men, material, money & morale, we must use what we do have wisely & to greatest effect.

You close by writing, "I would argue it is less costly (although still horrifically expensive as you correctly pointed out) to wage war on a part of the Muslim world rather than all of it. If not Iraq, where? If not Afghanistan, where?" I'm not smart enough to give you a good answer. I'll just repeat what Hugh has written (I mostly parrot him anyway): the fight will occur on many fronts, many non-military in nature. This is purely speculative, of course, but what if rather than engaging in a long-term effort to bring democracy to iraq, we instead devoted all those resources to a long-term effort to become independent of ME oil? Granted, that's at least a 10-year (maybe even 20-year), all-out effort. But considering that we've been in Kosovo for around 9 years, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that we could achieve relative energy independence from the Middle East in about the same time it would take to wind things up in iraq to bush's satisfaction.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at November 9, 2007 10:46 PM

sheik yer booty: You ask how can we possibly fight another Iraq type war as long as we stay in Iraq. Aside from the fact that we would be able to do so by significantly scaling down our troop presence in places like Japan and Germany (after all, isn't some sixty years in those nations enough by now?), there is the following to consider: Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have declared that Iraq is the central front in the war on the infidel. Why not take them at their word? Why leave Iraq (and hand a huge propaganda victory to Islamic terrorists) only to have to fight on some other central front? Iraq is at least as good as most any other place for the main theatre of war. We're already there. Where do you want to go? And what are the logistical, strategic and tactical reasons why?

Energy independence? All for it as I have posted many times here at JW. Explore for oil here, go nuclear, don't ignore the many possibilities with coal, research other truly viable sources of energy (please, not ethanol or too many windmills) and let's get the hell off our dependence of Middle Eastern oil once and for all. Ditto for Japan and other major allies of America.

Posted by: Wellington at November 9, 2007 11:20 PM

Wellington said

It will probably be the hardest, most difficult democratization effort of all time precisely for the reasons you stated, but shouldn't we try?

Why? Keeping in mind the topic of the thread, please frame the answer in terms of the benefits it would bring to the infidels.

One contingent says the hell with all Muslims------all Mohammedans are hopeless.

Errr, that's one way to put it. Another way would be to say that it is respectful to allow the Muslim world to follow their beliefs, and to create their own forms of government. Why should we go around the world forcing everyone to accept our values, at the point of a gun as some here have suggested?

Our society values economic prosperity, freedom, and tolerance of other points of view. By those measures, our society is "better". Their society values blind obedience to Allah and forced conversion of the world to their belief. By those measures, their society is "better". We say "toe-may-toe", they say "teh-mah-toe". Let's call the whole thing off.

The other group, to which I belong, wants to win over some Muslims to the cause of true freedom and tolerance

Why not respect and study their beliefs? Why not learn as much as possible about their values, and understand why those values must be kept as far away from us as possible?

Posted by: special_guest at November 9, 2007 11:58 PM

special_guest: I have studied the beliefs of Muslims for many years now and have to wonder how anyone could believe in such sordid fairy tales. But over a billion do. I think it possible, though, that many Muslims can observe a shell of their religion, just as huge numbers of followers of every other major relgion do. Those are the ones ripe for democratization. The alternative of saying to hell with all Muslims is fraught with just as many obstacles and dangers, if not more, as the approach I have suggested. This is not an ideal world (if it were, Islam surely would not exist) and we must work with what we have. Leaving all Muslims to stew in their own juices might be the worst option of all.

Posted by: Wellington at November 10, 2007 1:18 AM

Wellington,

I appreciate your position. While there is no moderate Islam, I hope we can all agree there are moderate Muslims.

How to win them over is the key. One thing's for sure, validating Islam as being something other than what it is....is NOT the answer.

I also agree with you that Hugh - despite his outward brilliance, seems to have a blind spot.

In my estimation, his errors include:

1) he seems to feel that after we depart from Iraq, any eventually there will be preferable to the current situation. I personally believe things could get much worse. Iran could gobble up the Shia south and its oil wealth, the moderate Kurdish entity in the north could be vanquished, and/or that interminable Shia/Sunni civil war he is hoping for could instead end up a condominium of the most fanatical elements of each.

2) he seems uninterested in helping moderate regimes like King Abdullah's Jordan. As imperfect as Abdullah is, his regime is infinitely preferable to a radical one based on the Syrian or worse, the Hamas model.

3) he shows no appreciation for the constraints on policy posed by public opinion in the USA; he wants us to forfeit all the work we've done in Iraq and then immediately re-engage elsewhere (Sudan). The public will never have it.

4) he wants to intervene on behalf of the unfortunates in Sudan, stirring up a hornets nest by focusing the global Jihad on that tortured country....but with no intention of a sustained commitment, leaving our hapless allies to their fate when the going gets tough, just as he wants to do in Iraq now.

There is a very real disconnect between all these seemingly brilliant Machiavellian plans of Hugh, and the realities on the ground.

PS - Did you happen to read David Horowitz's article at FPM: "The End of the University as we know it"...?

Check it out. David at his best.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 10, 2007 1:39 AM

Wellington wrote:

“The debate here at JW continues and I, for one, think it is a highly ethical, deeply philosophical, debate motivated by the best of intentions by most everyone. This is the finest forum I have ever posted at and I thank Robert Spencer above all for this. And Hugh, if you have read this post of mine, know that I have a very high opinion of you, even though I think you mistaken on a minority of your positions. I have no doubt the debate will continue. I for one welcome it.”

I agree completely. I also deeply appreciate those who post here, who have provided greater insight into this most important topic of our time.

We are faced with an IDOLOGICAL conflict of a greater magnitude than any we have faced in the past. For us to win, it will require a much greater and understanding of both who we are and who our enemy is, than at any time in our history.

In the past we faced fanatical tyrants with huge massed armies. For us to prevail, courage and some faith in ourselves was required, along with bullets, bombs and blood – lots of blood. Today what is required are some bullets, bombs and blood, but MOSTLY a deep understanding both of “democracy” and Islam. Most of all we must have TOTAL faith in ourselves.

If “democracy” is to win the battle with Islam our knowledge of our culture and ourselves must be crystal clear and steadfast. We must know without any doubt that the only “respect” that Islam is owed is the “respect’ one pays to a dangerous, murderous beast. Study is required, so we thoroughly know exactly why Islam is a dead end for humanity and all the reasons why “democracy” is the correct path to prosperity - and any possibility of human happiness.

We must articulate these things to the world, clearly, repeatedly and as long as it takes. This will take time and patience and perseverance but we must not “tolerate” the monstrous evil of Islam to exist in the world unchallenged. We must challenge Islam on its own ground in places of our choosing if possible, or as necessity dictates.

“Democracy” is the antidote to Islam. We challenge Islam is not to “help” those poor Muslims caught up in its fiendish grip, but to help ourselves by neutralizing a dangerous threat. Freeing Muslims from Islam is only a byproduct of what we must do to ensure our own safety.

To those who say this is too difficult and will take to long – what alterative do you propose? Endless war? I have been a soldier – try to imagine how difficult it would be to maintain an army to fight with no end in sight, no plan for final victory, nothing but endless struggle pain and death – would you do it? And tell me, how long does an “endless war” take?

Kill the Jihadi - educate the Muslim.