Iran is bent on furthering its interests wherever it finds an opportunity. I suspect it has less to do with wiping out Israel (though that may help its goals) as attempting to dominate the Sunnis.

Posted by: Occupant at May 15, 2008 3:12 PM

Again, being that this "phenomenon" is pretty universal (the lack of a border between jihadists and non-jihadists), would a US Constitutional amendment such as the following be desirable? (admitting it's very probable political infeasability)......
--

Whereby freedom of conscience and religion is consistent with other parts of the US Constitution, and where a doctrine or religion does not allow these freedoms is fundamentally oppressive, and whereas Islamic religious law prohibits its former adherents to break from its tenacles, and Islamic law instructs death as the penalty for making this choice, as well as having other basic tenets of the religion that are not compatible with basic human rights, Islam or direct theological offshoots are forbidden to be practiced in the United States.

Posted by: confused at May 15, 2008 3:34 PM

Robert -

I suspect that news was a shock to Ardolino himself, but it should come as no surprise to regular Jihad Watch readers

Given that I have embedded with several iterations of the Iraqi Security Forces in Fallujah and Baghdad over the past couple of years, and written about the positives and negatives extensively, this was not a surprise, nor a "cluebat" as you so eloquently put it.

Unsurprisingly, your analysis is presumptuous and aggressive.

The Islam-centric basis for the rest of your analysis is off as well; a bigger key to understanding most duplicitous dealings in Iraq has more to do with who wields power at any given moment, whether they are Muslim or infidel.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at May 15, 2008 5:17 PM

Bill from INDC (i.e., Ardolino):

Nice of you to stop by.

Given that I have embedded with several iterations of the Iraqi Security Forces in Fallujah and Baghdad over the past couple of years, and written about the positives and negatives extensively, this was not a surprise, nor a "cluebat" as you so eloquently put it.

Look up the word. Its definition is readily available.

Unsurprisingly, your analysis is presumptuous and aggressive.

Presumptuous? Not really -- it was a reasonable surmise given positions you have stated publicly and in an email to me.

Aggressive? Sir, I hardly think, given what you have written about me in other places, that you can say that with a straight face.

The Islam-centric basis for the rest of your analysis is off as well; a bigger key to understanding most duplicitous dealings in Iraq has more to do with who wields power at any given moment, whether they are Muslim or infidel.

Yes, you've stumbled on something there. There is no doubt that most duplicitous dealings in Iraq have a great deal to do with who appears to be the strong horse at any given moment. Does that negate or refute the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish between friend and foe and Iraq, which is in part due to the abysmal failure of self-professed moderate groups worldwide actually to do anything to distinguish their position from the jihadists, or to rule their perspective out of bounds?

No, it doesn't.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 15, 2008 5:30 PM

Bill from INDC

"The Islam-centric basis for the rest of your analysis is off as well, a bigger key to understanding most duplicitous dealings in Iraq has more to do with who wields power at any given moment, whether they are Muslim or infidel.”

What other kind of “centric” could there possibly be that can explain the various phenomena we have seen in Iraq over the last few years? Also considering there are not many infidels (except the US military) left in Iraq, I doubt we will have to worry about them holding power anytime soon. Muslims will be in power, thus I think it might be prudent to understand what Islam is all about, and how it influences behavior of those under its grip. Iraq will never be an ally, in the same way Saudi Arabia is not an ally, because Islam keeps getting in the way. Thus any strategy that is not Islam-centric when dealing with the Islamic world…is well..wrong.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 15, 2008 6:18 PM

Spencer -

Look up the word.

I'm not sure what word you're referring to. If it's "cluebat," quotations were not used to indicate I do not know the meaning, rather to quote you.

Presumptuous? Not really -- it was a reasonable surmise given positions you have stated publicly and in an email to me.

Your post is presumptuous about the idea that the information is a surprise, given my experience reporting on these issues ... coupled with the fact that I have reported on this specific phenomenon of duplicity and militia/insurgent infiltration in the ISF many times before. If you were more well versed in my work, you could have avoided the incorrect presumption about my reaction to the information in your post.

This is also why I labeled the analysis "aggressive," because you offered the presumption without knowing or reviewing my work.

Does that negate or refute the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish between friend and foe and Iraq, which is in part due to the abysmal failure of self-professed moderate groups worldwide actually to do anything to distinguish their position from the jihadists, or to rule their perspective out of bounds?

Jihadists in Iraq have distinguished themselves from regular Iraqis by killing, torturing, etc., anyone who violated their strict yet arbitrarily followed code of strict Islamic conduct. As you are no doubt aware, Sunni and Shia Iraqis have risen up against the takfiri who murdered individuals for having a satellite dish, or cut off fingers of those who smoked, or killed imams who preached messages that were not quite anti-American enough.

As I find is consistent, your analysis is based in some truth, but fails to account for a host of other factors. In the case of Iraq, regional, situational or cultural distinctions lose precedence as you trace everything back to the influence of Islam itself.

I'd argue that Arab culture and a legacy of Stalinist governance have at least as much or more to do with many of the paradigms you see in Iraq as/than Islam does, as more specific examples.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at May 15, 2008 8:51 PM

Bill Ardolino:

If you were more well versed in my work, you could have avoided the incorrect presumption about my reaction to the information in your post....This is also why I labeled the analysis "aggressive," because you offered the presumption without knowing or reviewing my work.

Funny how much this sounds like what I have said to you about your own previous and viciously unfair "analyses" of my own work. But in any case, as I said above, what I wrote was a reasonable surmise given positions you have stated publicly and in an email to me.

If you were not surprised, I'm glad to hear it, but there is a larger problem remaining, involving the conceptual apparatus necessary to go beyond the fact that is not surprising to the reason why it should not be surprising.

In the case of Iraq, regional, situational or cultural distinctions lose precedence as you trace everything back to the influence of Islam itself.

I do indeed tend to emphasize that aspect, as it is the one key aspect that you and other analysts like you tend to ignore consistently and, I believe, to an extent that is detrimental to the value of your work.

I'd argue that Arab culture and a legacy of Stalinist governance have at least as much or more to do with many of the paradigms you see in Iraq as/than Islam does, as more specific examples.

I'd be interested to see you attempt to disentangle Arab culture from Islam, but in any case, if you were more well versed in my work, you could have avoided the incorrect presumption that I have not considered or discussed the legacy of Stalinist governance and, indeed, Arab culture, as they relate to the situation in Iraq today.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at May 15, 2008 9:36 PM

Of course, that's the ticket- there's nothing but an endless series of regional conflicts that unaccountably involve Islamic countries. Some people might see a pattern, but of course it is nothing but coincidence.
Soooooooooo, in really important news, it's Dave v. Dave on American Idol. Hot Dog. And hey, have you seen the price of gas lately? Man, Congress oughta do something- I mean besides letting American companies drill for oil. Because there is no reason we should be reluctant to pay out our dollars to the Saudis, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, the Russians, Heck, if they want to control the price of oil, I say let 'em. Why should we increase supply and lower the worldwide price? Oh, and Eliot Spitzer's hooker is back in the news. Sure is a good thing that we don't have anything to worry about regarding jihad.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at May 15, 2008 10:18 PM

Islam and Tribal culture/Mother Earth and Tribal culture.

Mother Earth never made Iron Pots.

Islam never made Cellphones.

Both liked what we had but didn't like us.

History is repeating itself.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 15, 2008 11:02 PM

AnneCrockett -

Ever thought about doing standup?

There's so much great comedic material in islam. Groaningly funny. Ridicule is one of our greatest weapons; it's too bad joking about islam is likely to cause death threats.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at May 16, 2008 7:00 AM

Learning the language.

The preconceived notion that everyone is the same and have a similar value system, is false.
I worked in California, USA mental hospitals for many years, often with some of the most scary and dangerous people you could imagine. The reason these people are in there is because they don't 'think' like the rest of us, and will act out on their thoughts. It took a long time and lots of bruises before I realized there is a language going on here.
Once I learned it, things at the institution got better...at least for me. No matter what was being said or done, I understood the language behind it.
This knowledge shaped my actions, if I took any.
Employee's who could not comprehend this were most likely to lose their patience and become abusive, and to suffer injuries from patients.
Infidel soldiers on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere need to understand the 'language' of Islam which is involved in almost everything. Like the mentally ill, 'these people don't think like you do'. Their actions are not coordinated by your thoughts...Learn the language. Read Quran, ahadith, supporting literature and listen to what muslims say when they think you can't hear...
That may not be enough, but at least it's a start...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 16, 2008 9:02 AM

You can't trust a Muslim, period. Mohammed taught that, when dealing with an infidel, you submit when weak and dominate when strong. It's no stretch for a fatwah to decree that any situation in life justifies lying to an infidel so that a Muslim can get the upper hand.

Is this harsh? No, just realistic. Starry-eyed, liberal optimistic appeasers believe that talking to Muslims will somehow convince them of the correctness of our thinking. While nodding in agreement to us in English, these Muslims laugh at us in amazement in Arabic. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Posted by: JimmyDaGeek at May 16, 2008 10:42 AM

So it is no surprise or shock at all that the Iraqi Police force would contain Mahdi Army infiltrators -- it would be impossible to screen them out with full reliability by any questioning process imaginable.

The same applies to Muslim immigraion to the West -impossible to screen out those who harbour harm to the Infidel West. In any case, even if one could do the impossible and screen them out, there is no guarantee that their descendents will not become shari'a supporters or Jihadis. After all, the 7/7 bombers were all born and raised in Britain.

Posted by: DP111 at May 16, 2008 5:59 PM