| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
We have at this point two candidates. Neither one is nearly sufficient in his grasp of this problem. One, McCain, apparently is willing to go down with the ship of fools that is the Administration, and its mad effort, and squandering of men, money, materiel, to bring "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East. McCain talks of "victory" in Iraq without telling us in what that "victory" would consist -- and a "victory" can only consist, for Americans, in an outcome that weakens the Camp of Islam and therefore the Camp of Jihad. A unified, even prosperous Iraq, will not weaken the Camp of Islam. It will not have allowed the ethnic and sectarian fissures within Iraq to grow, and to have desirable destabilizing effects on the immediate neighbors, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
McCain is too easy on himself, for he does not follow the matter further, until even he would see that the Iraq policy, or the Tarbaby Iraq policy, does not make sense. McCain, like Bush, is a sentimentalist. He wishes good things for people rather than seeing some of them as a dangerous enemy that needs to be weakened. Nor does he see that the very best policy will be one that will force Muslims themselves (and long before that, force Infidels) to understand that the political, economic, social, intellectual and moral failures of Islamic states and societies are a direct result of Islam itself. That is not hard to show. The themes have been adumbrated, and more than adumbrated, at this website many times. McCain will have to jettison his insistence on clinging to Tarbaby Iraq, and he has to begin by seeing that "war" is much more than a matter of the merely military.
What about Obama? He is opposed to the war in Iraq, but his opposition does not appear to be of the right kind. After all, Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill were also early opponents of the war, and their worldview is a dangerous one. It is clear that Obama has some kind of notion -- he's a sentimentalist like McCain -- that his very being the son of a Kenyan father, and his childhood years spent outside the United States, somehow make him particularly sensitive to, and particularly attractive to, others who would otherwise be unsympathetic to America. It's the kind of thing that puts one in mind of the teacher who choose books for students to read not on the basis of literary merit, but solely on the basis of the racial, ethnic, religious, or other background of the writers.
Barack Obama may be fascinated by his own heritage, and may have all sorts of racial or postracial or transracial considerations that may begin to fascinate others, but at this point, the most important foreign policy question is how to rescue Western Europe, the historic West, from growing and seemingly inexorable islamization. Can someone who looks to Kenya for a genetic memory that he has made much of, and to a few years as a child in Indonesia for what is essentially merely a variant on the sinclair-lewis babbittish "travel-is-so-broadening" idea, be expected to feel keenly what is happening to France, Italy, Great Britain, and all the other countries under assault, and where a new kind of transatlantic alliance is necessary, is indispensable? Will Barack Obama, with his declared interests, background, and affinities, feel this need as keenly as he should, as he must?
Barack Obama's "apostasy" is not the problem. His campaign has stated that he never considered himself to be a Muslim. Those who keep harping on the notion that he was once a Muslim at or around the age of ten, and that he must admit to this, are setting themselves up for ridicule. What is worrisome is not that he was once a Muslim, or still more absurdly, considered to be a "secret Muslim," but that he is ignorant of Islam, and has not made any effort to investigate it, and may be sentimental about it, based on personal history: his desire to identify with his absentee Kenyan father, the fact that his mother's second husband was also a Muslim; his childhood experience in Indonesia, which may make him think he knows something about Islam but was as idiosyncratic and unrepresentative an experience of Islam -- as was that "experience of Islam" that a much older, but not wiser, Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz had when he was the American ambassador in Indonesia. Like Obama, Wolfowitz did not understand what Islam was about, and took his experience there -- with everyone trying to woo and win him ("yes, we really hope to establish diplomatic relations with Israel") -- as normative. This naiveté about Islam was not undone, but was reinforced, by Wolfowitz’s Arab girlfriend. No doubt she a lady with all the right intentions, but as she was herself a would-be reformer or tamer of Islam, in that very role she offered false hopes, and misrepresented the meaning, and menace, of Islam.
The problem with Barack Obama's supposed Muslim connection is that he has not shown any inclination to ponder the nature of Islam at its essence, and not in the modified unrepresentative form in which he may have, fleetingly and personally, encountered it. And a greater problem is a lack of historical knowledge, and a naiveté (without the viciousness) about the world that rivals that of Jimmy Carter, and a trust in such obviously disturbing "advisers" as the vicious, and naively realpolitiking, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
There's plenty to worry about with Barack Obama and his more-than-sufficient display, so far, of all the wrong foreign-policy instincts, including his dreamy belief that meeting and talking with representatives of Iran would do some good. Some say, what could be the harm in merely meeting and talking? The harm could be great. It would justify, it would dignify, it would give a boost in the minds of its own disaffected subjects, to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It would encoil us in useless, protracted discussions with those who are past masters at deception and deliberate delay, and who treat such meetings not as occasions for the exchange of views that we are expected to believe have not already, and repeatedly, been exchanged, but rather as instruments of war: the propaganda war that Muslims engage in, and we, alas, do not.
Posted by Hugh at May 20, 2008 11:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Obama may be ignorant of Islam but he doesn't think he is. He thinks his childhood experiences and African/Muslim connections have uniquely qualified him to be our voice to African and Asian countries and, most especially, to Muslim countries.
A living example of the axiom that says a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and ignorance is bliss.
The problem is McCain isn't any better. No realists are running. They have all been denounced as racists or warmongers.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 20, 2008 12:24 PM
So who do we vote for?! I'd write in Robert Spencer but he said if nominated he wouldn't run and if elected he wouldn't serve, or something like that. And I suspect Hugh is the same. And Geert isn't an American citizen. I guess McCain is the lesser evil, but he's still a lousy choice. What are we Americans going to do?
Posted by: JeffS at May 20, 2008 12:28 PM
Obama is a nightmare for our country period.
Reading his two books, its clear he has no use for the west and especially whites.
And you can tell a lot about a person from the company they keep.
When you look at most of his "friends" and associates while in Chicago, they are Muslim or ex-Muslim, among the few white friends he has, two are unrepentant ex-terrorists.
The Ayers connection in and of itself is enough to disqualify him from the presidency IMO. Given that Ayers and Dorn were the ones who got him started in Chicago politics.
He belongs to a church, if you can it that, that promotes Black Liberation Theology. He sat in the pews when its reverend preached black separatism, hatred of whites and Jews for the last 23 years. The same reverend who is also good friends with Farrakhan and was even in his youth a member of the NOI.
The same church that printed the Hamas manifesto and agrees that killing innocents is ok.
The fact that Obama rarely says much about Islam in general means that he's not going to talk about it unless pinned in a corner. If you notice Obama isn't big on offering his own views on anything.
Posted by: waltc at May 20, 2008 12:29 PM
“And a greater problem is a lack of historical knowledge…” Hugh.
Obama’s praising of Kennedy for standing firm in 1962 is a bad example. Missiles crises was a direct result of Kennedy’s mistakes: rejection of Kastro’s offer and lack of understanding of the Russian-Cuban relationship.
To compare situation during the Cold War with the present (soviet Union and Iran) is totally out of place. SU and US were NOT enemies, They were competitors. A military action against US was NEVER considered by the soviet government or military.
Mc Cain is likely to continue the same as Bush unless he gets Bolton as his secretary of state, but it is just a nice dream.
With McCain US will be getting something close to Bush and with Obama something close to Carter.
at May 20, 2008 12:37 PM
Congress will never act on its own in such a way as to let Hugh's dream come true.
Sure, lets leave and let a dream become a Global Nightmare.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 20, 2008 12:40 PM
The assumption here - repeated time and again by our resident Machiavellian genius - is that only an Iraq mired in sectarian and ethnic conflict can be somehow automatically and intrinsically beneficial to the West.
Would the same be said of Tunisia...which is Muslim and Arab, sits in the center of Dar ul Islam, and yet has banished the head scarf and other facets of political Islam, opposes terrorism and remains close to the West? Of course not. Not every Muslim country is an enemy....and in the pursuit of the anti-Jihad, we would be foolish to wish that all Muslim societies - even those that are comparatively progressive - be convulsed with turmoil.
In Iraq, the autonomy and the progressive Islam being practiced in Iraqi Kurdistan - where women are empowered to the point that it's not unusual to see them in the police and militia - will be jeopardized by the ethnic/sectarian conflict that Hugh is so eager to see happen. His bromide, should the Kurds be threatened by the forces unleashed in such a conflict, is a bizarre and entirely unrealistic premise that America can...
1) withdraw from Iraq, inviting the ensuing civil war...and then prevail upon the American public to re-involve ourselves on behalf of the Kurds should they become threatened
2) walk away from our responsibilities in Iraq and yet at the same time prevail upon the powers in the region (principally the Turks) to not only guarantee the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, but to encourage that entity to lop off portions of Kurdish-inhabited land from Syria and Iran.
The Turks of course have the largest population of ethnic Kurds in the region and are currently fighting a guerrilla war against Kurdish separatists. Their worst nightmare would be an independent Kurdistan emerging from a disintegrating Iraq. But in Hugh's world, an America in strategic retreat can still prevail upon the Turks to betray their own national interests and support an independent Kurdistan.
If Hugh wants to argue - like the Democrats - that Iraq is not worth the blood and treasure we're spending on it, fine. I don't agree but at least it's a coherent argument. As for his incessant insistence that abandoning Iraq to the extremists - Sunni or Shia or both - will be GOOD for American national security, I don't buy it for a minute, any more than I think we can walk away and still effect the fate of the Iraqi Kurds.
at May 20, 2008 12:42 PM
A very good short article, fair to both sides (but what about Hillary?).
Posted by: Jerry M at May 20, 2008 1:03 PM
Translated by Gaia:
Oriana Fallaci Square in place of the mosque
VERONA — Goodbye mosque. In its place, Oriana Fallaci Square.
This decision was taken by the committee of Oppeano (Verona), where yesterday morning a building used by Muslims for prayer was bulldozed. In its place, the Municipality will create a public square named after the writer of The Rage and the Pride, which promoted a bitter campaign against Islam.
The decision to raze the structure which had been opened by ONLUS [translator’s note: Organizzazione Non Lucrativa di Utilita’ Sociale, a non-profit registered Italian charity] “For the success of Muslims”, was taken by the municipal administration, which acquired the area for €70,000 in order to transform it into an open area for parking and green space.
“My citizens did not want this takeover,” explained the mayor, Alessandro Montagnoli, deputy of the Lega Nord, “above all because it could create problems of practicability and cohabitation with the residents.”
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at May 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Let me offer an endorsement of John McCain.
Bottom line, you are certain that he will advance the interests of this country over the special interests that run it. His record in Vietnam demonstrates that he is willing to sacrifice his own needs for the needs of others.
No politician is perfect, but the alternative is a candidate with NO foreign policy experience and a naivete towards our opponents that is alarming.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Let me offer an endorsement of John MaCain.
Bottom line, you are certain that he will advance the interests of this country over the special interests that run it. His record in Vietnam demonstrates that he is willing to sacrifice his own needs for the needs of others.
No politician is perfect, but the alternative is a candidate with NO foreign policy experience and a naivete towards our opponents that is alarming.
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 20, 2008 1:55 PM
I agree with cornelius. Abondoning Iraq, especially now when the strategies are finally working, would give huge power to Iran and Syria. That transfer of power will come back to bite us sooner rather than later. That's also the reason we shold isolate them, not talk to them.
We have the choice to help people in Muslim countries go backward to radical Islam, poverty and terrorism or go forward to democracy, wealth and peace.
As Iraq and Afghanistan become stabilised and their citizens see the two paths before them more clearly then it is unlikely they will want to go back.
Sure, Islam is part of the problem, but when people are richer, are employed, are not at war and are safe, are not under a brutal dictatorship, have freedom of the press, then they simply dont need religion as much. Don't deny them the opportunity to improve themselves by saying that people in Muslim countries are only identified by their religion. For a start it discredits any reformers.
More on topic, Obama is cool and all but this country needs more than image. It needs practical solutions to its problems - higher taxes and talking unconditionally to our enemies will simply lead to more poverty, more reliance on the state, more appeasment and, ultimately, disillusionment with the golden boy.
Posted by: madijihadi at May 20, 2008 2:20 PM
From post above: Sure, Islam is part of the problem, but when people are richer, are employed, are not at war and are safe, are not under a brutal dictatorship, have freedom of the press, then they simply dont need religion as much.
How does that apply to the Saudi's? This seems to be the poverty argument, when people don't have these things they need religion and jihad. If you made every muslim rich beyond their wildest dreams, they would still be muslims. The Quran would still be the Quran and the directions from Allah the same.
There is nothing wrong with people having the things mentioned, but I don't see riches making muslims less religious...except for a few hypocrites...Las Vegas here we come...Allah willing...
at May 20, 2008 2:36 PM
Cornelius says;
If Hugh wants to argue - like the Democrats - that Iraq is not worth the blood and treasure we're spending on it, fine. I don't agree but at least it's a coherent argument. As for his incessant insistence that abandoning Iraq to the extremists - Sunni or Shia or both - will be GOOD for American national security, I don't buy it for a minute, any more than I think we can walk away and still effect the fate of the Iraqi Kurds.
I basically agree with this, but the point may be awareness. The frustration for me is that the majority simply do not want to see the truth about islam. If we did withdraw our troops the reality of islam would undoubtedly become apparent to those that think muslims hate the west because of our occupation or because of some foreign policy blunder. Truth is they just hate the kaffir. No doubt they will continue to terrorize and kill. Perhaps then more people will investigate just what motivates these barbarians. Start reading the koran and associated material to understand its tenets. Even start discussing it openly using real meaningful words. I've got a educated baby boomer in the next cube that learned to read Hebrew to understand the Bible deeper that argues he read the koran and never saw one word about Christians. Oh Really???? It takes a great deal of effort to see islam as "the religion of peace" but that's what he wants so for him that's what it is, no discussion. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans feel the same way. If it wasn't true Obama would have been cast from the ballad months ago.
at May 20, 2008 2:41 PM
Frankly, I agree with Hugh entirely, but we still have to vote for someone.
Since Hugh makes a point about saving Europe from certain Islamization, it should be noted that if fortuitous circumstance had landed Obama in Europe instead of America, right now he'd likely be circling in on Brussels rather than Washington.
As a far-left, socialist loony tune, Obama fits right in at Brussels.
Much as I hate to say it--and McCain was I thought the worst-choice candidate in the original Republican field--I'm forced without an alternative to back him, for Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation, attitudes about Islam and the war on terror notwithstanding.
McCain in '08.
HAID
Posted by: Haid Dasalami at May 20, 2008 2:55 PM
Barack Obama's conflation of ignorance and sentimentality about Islam may prove dangerous, but it is hardly surprising. He doesn't stand out on account of it - he fits in. His mind is probably on other things most of the time, and there would in his view, and in the view of most politicians, be no need to find out anything about Islam because the popular opinion of the subject is assumed to be all the information you need, and is completely reassuring.
Given the long, grim tale of Western defense against the violent encroachments of Islam, one would think that the mere fact that it is somebody's religion wouldn't be nearly enough to exonerate it in the eyes of Westerners today.
But, sad to say, the opposite is the case. With Islam's goal of conquest and subjugation entirely intact (a religion spread by the sword, in response to its holy book's exhortations to violence, which we can still read, just happens to inspire violence, not to mention expressions of hatred and the determination to conquer, on a fairly regular basis, in some of its adherents today) its victims and potential victims think they are responding in the only correct manner by making excuses for it that even some Muslims do not feel the need of.
The advantages enjoyed by Islam today are perhaps comparable to those of communism during its run at historical prevalence, but they would have been the envy of Adolf Hitler. Barack Obama is just an unthinking participant in that sad and alarming scenario.
at May 20, 2008 3:06 PM
... Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation, attitudes about Islam and the war on terror notwithstanding.
McCain in '08.
Haid Dasalami
I have not been able to get one local liberal to even look at Obama's negative baggage. They have stars in their eye's, a dazed look, and can go off on a Barack worshipping frenzy at a moments notice.
There seem to be a lot of them. I mentioned previously about the local liberals commandeering the one local overpass to demonstrate on. People think I am joking. Nope. Now they are out there with Obama signs. Maybe a hundred...That's a small crowd, I expect it will grow when people get off work. They light candles, sing, chant, hold hands, burn incense, play hand drums, and all that good stuff.
How can you fight that? There is no opening for reason to slip in. And all of them, except the children, will vote...for Obama...Scary huh...
at May 20, 2008 3:20 PM
Cornelius: You argued your point well. My compliments.
You know, sometimes life leaves you only bad options and so you're left with choosing the least bad option among those available. For now, since we're already in Iraq and many Muslim folks, however confused they are, depend on the American military so that slaughter of them won't ensue (the Kurds come particularly to mind), America has a moral obligation to reamin there and kill as many jihadists as possible. It's not a good scene but just leaving isn't either. Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. But I can still detest the Islamic world for all the hate, tragedies and stupidities it has bred.
Posted by: Wellington at May 20, 2008 3:29 PM
"Would the same be said of Tunisia...which is Muslim and Arab, sits in the center of Dar ul Islam, and yet has banished the head scarf and other facets of political Islam, opposes terrorism and remains close to the West? Of course not." ... posted by Cornelius
I think Afghanistan is the more salient example of what we can expect in return for our blood and treasure.
Posted by: Infidel33 at May 20, 2008 3:50 PM
The choice in a nutshell..
John McCain
Negatives: If McCain wins we will stay in Iraq for four more years. That will cost billions of more dollars and cost another couple thousand U.S. troops and accomplish nothing. It will be like four more years of Bush. The democrats will nominate another left wing lunatic and win the presidency in 2012.
Positives: McCain does not get along well with the Arabians (or at one time he did not). It is possible that in a fit of rage he will tell the Arabians to take a hike. Also the same reasoning might apply to Iran as well. He might just bomb them (unlike Bush).
The Big O
Negatives: If Obama wins we will leave Iraq probably in a half-assed way. Then Obama will talk to the Iranians and will force the Israelis to accept all sorts of idiotic concessions. It will be like four years of Jimmy Carter.
Positives: Obama will not the use the military at all which will prevent it being wasted in any other idiotic democracy adventures. Obama is so foolish (and will be so god awful bad) I suspect the GOP will win back at least one house in congress in two years and win the presidency in 2012.
Other possible outcomes…
Lots of things can happen in four years. It is possible that the political parties will just fall apart. Both parties are divided right now and I think many of the issues facing the nation like our economic issues, Islamic aggression, and energy are just the rocks to break up the current political order. Never since the 1850s has this nation faced such political instability.
Just in case you are wondering…I am still voting for McCain. I can always hope he will just go nuts and just start smacking people around. However, I think Obama is going to win anyway. Either way it is going to be a rough ride…
at May 20, 2008 3:56 PM
greatcometof1577: In complete agreement with you on one matter and that is Obama. He's a disaster in waiting because being the Far Left guy that he is he has no comprehension that civilization must be tough as well as decent. Winston Churchill, were he here, would be appalled by the guy.
Posted by: Wellington at May 20, 2008 4:32 PM
Cornelius
What is your plan? Just stay forever to ensure “stability”. So far the only plan you have presented is just to stay, because if we don’t all the Muslims will start killing each other! My god! Think of the horror! Turks vs. Kurds! Persians vs. Arabs! Sunni vs. Shiite!
Then you tell us how this will be considered a defeat if we leave, but as long as we stay, we keep doing things to promote defeat (like the latest shoot the Quran episode) and we keep using up the military and our money for the sake of that so called “stability”.
You have not stated how any of this has helped us? Staying in Iraq will not address the Islamic immigration problem. Staying in Iraq will not address our energy problems due to OPEC. Staying in Iraq will not do anything to stop Iran, considering it has worked so well up to this point in preventing them from getting the bomb. My question to everyone is this: How has staying in Iraq benefited us? How are we winning the war by staying in Iraq? How does staying in Iraq address the number one cause of this world war which is traditional Islam? Have we done anything secularize Iraq? Have we done anything to remove traditional Islam from the lives of Iraqis? Are Islamic political parties banned?
I am sorry, but if you want the American people to spend billions of tax dollars more and waste another couple thousand troops, we need to know if it is worth it and WHY? We need hard facts on how this helps us? Show me proof that muslims are becoming our allies in Iraq. I don't see it...
at May 20, 2008 4:34 PM
Wellington
I live in Maryland and my vote will not count. Obama will take this state in landslide. Obama is modern day prophet and who said liberals are not religious.
However, Obama is so bad I will vote for McCain...and I hate staying in Iraq!
....that is how bad Obama is.
at May 20, 2008 4:50 PM
Internet based research but....
Subject: Staged news?
In the news this week, at five different campaign stops 5 different women fainted (See James Taranto's "We Shall Be Overcome" Wall Street Journal
2/14/08 for a precise chronology), prompting Obama's attention and in some cases the bestowal of a water bottle.
Now, the usual cynics and unbelievers are dismissing this as "phoney, orchestrated, manufactured campaign theatrics", or even "physiological coincidence".
True Believers, on the other hand, will recognize this as yet another heavenly-bestowed opportunity for Obama to reveal his benevolent compassion
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4eaod_fainting-rallies_news
"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama"
- Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
Probably not.
at May 20, 2008 4:53 PM
WELLINGTON: "I can still detest the Islamic world for all the hate, tragedies and stupidities it has bred."
RESPONSE: I detest Islam as a belief system, but I see Muslims in all shades and colors. A traditionalist is preferable to a terrorist, a progressive is preferable to a traditionalist, a secularist is preferable to a progressive, an ex-Muslim is preferable to a secularist.
------------------------------------------------
INFIDEL33: "I think Afghanistan is the more salient example of what we can expect in return for our blood and treasure."
RESPONSE: If so, I happen to think that Hamed Karzai, with all his faults, is preferable to the Taliban. He is fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban harbored them.
------------------------------------------------
GREATCOMET: "How has staying in Iraq benefited us? How are we winning the war by staying in Iraq?"
RESPONSE: By preventing both Al Qaeda and Iran from gaining control of a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.
GREATCOMET: "What is your plan? Just stay forever to ensure “stability”."
RESPONSE: Stay until the country is pacified...and then, if invited to do so, maintain a presence with permanent military bases.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 20, 2008 5:13 PM
GREATCOMET: "Staying in Iraq will not address the Islamic immigration problem."
RESPONSE: Agreed. But leaving Iraq prematurely and inviting ethnic/sectarian conflict there will surely produce a tide of refugees...that America will be compelled - by both guilt and compassion (no matter who is Prez) - into granting visas to literally hundreds of thousands. I'm not saying we should admit them, I'm saying we will, just as we did after the fall of Saigon.
Preventing a refugee crises in which America will be inundated with Muslims....just one more reason to finish the job in Iraq.
at May 20, 2008 5:28 PM
The choice in a nutshell:
SOMEONE ELSE!
McCain is selling us out. Nothing he says now can be trusted.
Obama is no better.
They're both equally bad.
There are other options. Check them out.
at May 20, 2008 5:31 PM
Cornelius: Agree with your response to my post. Lincoln probably said it best (he said a lot of things best) when he observed that you can hate the sin without necessarily hating the sinner.
greatcometof1577: You live in Maryland, eh? Beautiful state from Garrett County to the Eastern Shore but too bad the city of Baltimore and Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties are in it. Otherwise, Maryland would be a red state. Hey, I feel your pain.
Posted by: Wellington at May 20, 2008 5:54 PM
this is perhaps off topic, but on Drudge site, it has information about Bush attacking iran before his term is up. l know one time when asked about iran, McCain, sang to a tune of bomb iran, bomb, bomb,etc.
for all McCain's worts he should win easily. if for some uncanny reason Obama wins, you can see a replay of Carter years, only ten times worse.
at May 20, 2008 7:23 PM
this is perhaps off topic, but on Drudge site, it has information about Bush attacking iran before his term is up. l know one time when asked about iran, McCain, sang to a tune of bomb iran, bomb, bomb,etc.
for all McCain's worts he should win easily. if for some uncanny reason Obama wins, you can see a replay of Carter years, only ten times worse.
at May 20, 2008 7:24 PM
ZENA: "for all McCain's worts he should win easily."
RESPONSE: I disagree. Considering the economy in the tank and an unpopular war, the advantage definitely goes to the opposition party candidate. Barring a major campaign gaffe, Barak Hussien Obama will in all likelihood be the next President of the USA.
God help us.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 20, 2008 8:27 PM
GREATCOMET: "What is your plan? Just stay forever to ensure “stability”."
RESPONSE (by Cornelius) : Stay until the country is pacified...and then, if invited to do so, maintain a presence with permanent military bases.
Pacified. That is rich. Which Iraqi muslims are those we are suppose to pacify? Just the "extremists"? What about those who never owned or even grasped an AK-47 or experienced the thrill of placing and then watching an IED explode yet embrace sharia and are true believers who desire Islam to dominate by any means necessary? Jihadists, violent or otherwise, are enemies of the West. Ibrahim Hooper has (most likely) never picked up a weapon to use against the US. It is his belief system coupled with his desire to spread Islam by any means necessary that makes him an enemy of freedom loving countries.
To pacify Iraq is to pacify Islam. Can't be done.
Does anyone actually believe that we can sustain this war until we have won over all those hearts and minds that require winning over until they are sufficiently pacified to the point where the US can count on an Islamic Iraq as being a trusted and reliable ally?
How in the world does one pacify a nation that embraces sharia law within its very constitution?
Cornelius and his point of view, which is the mainstream GOP point of view, will be the reason why we will have a the disaster of an Obama presidency with a democratic controlled house and senate. Americans are fed up with this war. They have been fooled with promises of "victory". They too probably accept the false promises that some day soon, with the right general and just a few more dollars, the tide will turn in our favor, and we are moments away from complete pacification of Iraq.
Wellington says: "America has a moral obligation to remain there and kill as many jihadists as possible. "
Is this why we stay in Iraq? To play whack-a-jihadist?
If killing as many jihadists is the goal why is it that Americans have this obligation? Ig Hugh's theory is correct, the Camp of Jihad will kill even more than Americans ever could at a much lower cost in lives and treasure.
Regarding Kurds, the US could, if it chose to, and if the Kurds continued to prove themselves worthy, offer them the same military protection that the US offers Isreal, (another country surrounded by hostile muslim regimes)
at May 20, 2008 8:28 PM
USORTHEM: "To pacify Iraq is to pacify Islam. Can't be done."
RESPONSE: This is the kind of negativity one associates with liberal Democrats. This kind of negationism mimics the liberal media's attempts to ignore the remarkable progress made in Iraq over the last 8 months. Not only CAN it be done, it IS being done.
USORTHEM: "Regarding Kurds, the US could, if it chose to, and if the Kurds continued to prove themselves worthy, offer them the same military protection that the US offers Isreal, (another country surrounded by hostile muslim regimes)"
RESPONSE: Another fallacy.
Imagine the reaction of the American public when, fresh on the heals of the fall of the US embassy in Bagdhad and the accompanying bloodbath of those Iraqis associated with our efforts there....agonizingly displayed on TV night after night, the US President commits the US to the defense of Iraqi Kurdistan. Do you actually believe we will have the political will to do so? If I were an Iraqi Kurd, in the aftermath of our abandonment of Iraq, I wouldn't put much faith in such a commitment.
And even if such a commitment was made in spite of overwhelming domestic opposition in the USA, how would we go about it? Israel is accessible by sea. Iraqi Kurdistan is land-locked. Whose territory would we use to access our ally? Whose airspace would we persistently violate?
If we cut Iraq loose and then try to defend Iraqi Kurdistan in the bloody aftermath, we'd find ourselves in a deeper conflict than the current one we're facing.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 20, 2008 8:54 PM
Tunisia...which is Muslim and Arab, sits in the center of Dar ul Islam, and yet has banished the head scarf and other facets of political Islam, opposes terrorism and remains close to the West?
Cornelius,
Tunisia's GOVERNMENT remains close to the West but the country is not free and the people support al Qaeda. Banishing the head scarf means absolutely nothing. The government released many Islamists from prison last year. How many of them have gone back to their old ways?
The Turks of course have the largest population of ethnic Kurds in the region and are currently fighting a guerrilla war against Kurdish separatists. Their worst nightmare would be an independent Kurdistan emerging from a disintegrating Iraq.
And whose fault is that? The Turks might have prevented the disintegration of Iraq if they had allowed the US (their ally!) military to enter Iraq from the north at the start of the invasion. The only reason an independent Kurdistan might emerge from Iraq is because the Turks wouldn't help us from the start and because the Kurds have to defend themselves from Turkish incursions from the north and from Iraqi Arabs. The Turks have been threatening the Kurds of Iraq. So do we help the Iraqi Kurds preserve what it took them twelve years to achieve or do we let Turkey destroy them? It's okay to lop off the Kurdish portions of Syria and Iran but not Turkey? Why would those countries agree to it? Why would you expect them to?
Turkey is becoming more Islamist every year and it has nothing to do with Kurdistan.
Unlike Hugh, I will argue that we simply cannot afford to stay there, that staying there will not produce any more benefits than have already been achieved, those being the death of Saddam and his sons and the empowerment of the majority Shia population and an end to sanctions.
I wouldn't welcome a civil war and the Kurds are the only reason I would think of keeping anyone in Iraq (we could position some soldiers in the Kurdish region and let the Arabs fend for themselves) but it's time Iraqis got on with the business of creating their own country. If they don't want to, well they had their opportunity.
If other countries, particularly Iraq's neighbors, think America's presence in Iraq is a necessity I would invite them to pony up the funds. American taxpayers shouldn't shoulder the burden of Arab security with oil over $100 a barrel.
As for our "allies", symbolic demonstrations of solidarity, like two soldiers from one country or five from another, don't cut it. Those who want us to stay need to show us why and how they would make that achievable and what they would bring to the effort beyond a statement of support.
at May 20, 2008 9:16 PM
USorThem: You ask, "Is this why we stay in Iraq? To play whack-a-jihadist?" To this query I would answer, "Yes, in large part." If America doesn't whack a jihadist, who will? Look, the Muslim world is a very f---ed up world and we either try to enlist some Muslims against others or we passively wait for the whole damn 'umma' either to kill itself off or, not doing so, come after us. There are too many damn Muslims for the former option (wonderful wishing thinking though it be) and so if we don't enlist the more humane portion of the Muslim world on our side, then it's all out war against the entire Muslim entity. Whichever option you prefer, surely you understand that neither will be costless. Reasonable minds can differ about which is the less bad option but, for now, I think a very good case can be made for the former.
You also ask "why is it that Americans have this obligation?" There are two reasons: 1) We are the great power and thus whether we like it or not we have responsibilities that other nations don't even have to think about it, let alone act upon; and 2) If you've seen the movie "Zulu" you might recall the master sargeant's response to an enlisted man who asked why does he and his fellow soldiers have to deal with the Zulu attack on a British base. The master sargeant's impeccably British response was "Because we're here." Just so.
Posted by: Wellington at May 20, 2008 10:24 PM
Cornelius
My problem is you don’t take anything else into account. You say stay in Iraq until pacified, but you don’t explain what that means. You talk about remarkable progress, but don’t explain what that means either? Let me ask you a question: Who is the enemy and who are we trying to defeat? How do you view this war?
Here is my opinion.
Traditional Islam is in a period of military expansion. This military expansion, on a world wide scale, is due to several factors. The two main reasons are oil profits, which have made expansion possible again, and political weakness in the west creating a vacuum. Things like giving economic aid to Muslim countries (Egypt for example) and Muslim immigration are symptoms of the two major reasons.
I will deal only with the first reason: The oil trade funding Islamic expansion.
Thus our goal should be to weaken Islam by choking off their economic engine. The more instability in the Middle East, the less oil gets pumped, the more the price goes up at home, which in turn forces western leaders to look for alternative sources, and this will in turn mean less money for Islamic expansion.
However, as long as we stay in the Middle East, protecting the oil lanes with our navy, pumping the oil for them, trying to create stability and thus protecting the whole system, then the Islamic expansion will continue. The oil money is used to influence the media, political leaders, and academic departments to put forward a positive image of Islam, this will in turn keep the doors open for Muslim immigration. More Muslim immigration means more infringements on our freedoms. As the Muslim population increases and as Muslim influence increases (and economic investments) so will the push for Sharia in the west. In the mean time, oil money will be used to build mosques all around the world, win converts, and build propaganda groups (like CAIR). So in truth it is a two pronged attack. The money is used to fund armed jihad, but also demographic jihad. The armed jihad uses up our resources and resolve, while the demographic jihad continues untouched breaking us from within. I don’t think anyone in the Islamic world thinks armed jihad can beat the west, but it is doing a hell of job at weakening us and diverting us. Their main goal is victory by demographic jihad.
Iraq has turned into one of the greatest diversion ploys in history. We spend billions of dollars fighting “terror” in Iraq, but nothing is done about the real threat or what funds that threat. So far the propaganda has worked. No western leader has made the connection between Islam and “Terror”. So we can stay in Iraq forever, but until you do something about the economic engine that funds jihad then it will not affect the outcome of the war in the positive. However, by staying in Iraq we influence it in the negative by protecting the very economic engine that funds our destruction.
Now things of course are a little more complex in terms of the internals of the Islamic world, however, this should not matter to us non-Muslims, except that it might be useful to exploit those divisions in the Islamic world to weaken the whole Jihad offensive.
at May 21, 2008 12:30 AM
From The Atlantic, December 2007:
Consider this hypothetical: It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brownskinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
Posted by: Tom at May 21, 2008 2:05 AM
> More Muslim immigration means more infringements on our freedoms.
I'm as much an atheist as the next guy, and I'm not terribly fond of Islam at all. But I'm not clear on how Muslim immigration, in and of itself, infringes on anyone's freedoms.
Multiculturalism and stupid laws? Sure. Political correctness? Yeah, probably.
But immigration? WTF?
Posted by: Tom at May 21, 2008 2:09 AM
GreatComet,
Much of what you state is spot-on. The soft Jihad is proceeding apace and we seem to be clueless. But the hard Jihad is nonetheless very real.
As for your points...
1) However much we want otherwise, the transition to alternative forms of energy is going to take at least a decade or two....in the interregnum, the securing of oil supplies remains a vital national security imperative.
2) There are important differences between the soft Jihad and hard Jihad. In some ways, the former is more dangerous because it is more effective. But the latter is a danger of immediate consequence. For example, if Washington DC or New York City suffers the tragedy of a WMD attack killing thousands, the sudden perspective of the "hard" Jihad will come into focus...and Saudi success in gradually corrupting our politics and universities will suddenly pale in comparison.
GREATCOMET: "You say stay in Iraq until pacified, but you don’t explain what that means."
RESPONSE: Iraq will be pacified when the violent Jihadis are defeated and the country achieves a level of stability that it can do without our direct intervention. This is a very attainable goal, protestations to the contrary by the naysayers notwithstanding.
GREATCOMET: "You talk about remarkable progress, but don’t explain what that means either?"
RESPONSE: The incorporation of formerly-hostile Sunni tribes into the fight against Al Qaeda is an example of remarkable progress. The increasing effectiveness of the Iraqi Army is another...(the Iraqi police remain ineffectual).
GREATCOMET: "Who is the enemy and who are we trying to defeat? How do you view this war?"
RESPONSE: I see the Iraqi conflict as one theater in a larger war. We are trying to defeat the most radical and violent components in the Arab/Muslim world: Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and to a lessor extent, the Mahdi Army of Muqtada Al Sadr.
To suggest that it matters not who governs Iraq - that all Muslims are equally bad - belies the reality on the ground. While some Muslims are trying to kill us in Iraq and Afghanistan, others are fighting and dying alongside our soldiers. Malaki and Karzai are very different creatures than Bin Ladin and Zawahiri, with different agendas that don't include orchestrating a global terror campaign against us. These differences are PROFOUND!
If we leave Iraq prematurely, any number of things could happen. The best-case scenario is that Hugh could be absolutely right and Shia and Sunni might dissipate their energies fighting each other in a long-running conflict....OR, the worst-case scenario is that after some initial fighting, the most radical of Sunni and Shia could triumph over the other or even unite, defeating the moderates and converting Baghdad into the new center of the global Caliphate.
Another distinct possibility is that Iraq would fall into Iran's orbit, creating an Iranian super-state in the gulf.
We can't ignore these eventualities.
One thing is certain: Iraqi Kurdistan would not survive as is...Ansar al Islam would be reconstituted (perhaps under another name) and with the support of Iran, radical Sunnis and perhaps even Turkey, they would use violence to first destabilize and then Islamize the region.
As Wellington wrote, were damned if we do and damned if we don't. But MY money is on a policy of engagement where we can actually effect the course of events.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 21, 2008 6:25 AM
PS - I'm gone for the day. Thanks for the debate. These issues really do need discussing. This is one reason why JW is such a valuable institution.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 21, 2008 6:27 AM
Tom
I should have been clearer...
More Muslim immigrants mean more infringements of freedoms in two ways.
(1) Forming large voting blocks to push for localized sharia, and for gaining the ear of national leaders to help their agenda. This of course would mean freedoms will be infringed upon in that localized area. Of course at some point you would think non-Muslims (the majority) would push back, but I have yet to see that. Also if you combine them with the multicultural leftwing and other various stupid political leaders/groups then get ready for some real infringements on a national level. Just at look at Europe for example.
(2) More Muslim immigrants will naturally lead to more conflicts with the native non-Muslim population. This will mean to more violent jihad attacks within the country, which then lead to more government restriction to keep us safe. This means more infringements on our freedoms. It is understandable in order to keep us safe, but those infringements would not be needed if we did not have a large Muslim population within the national borders.
I am talking of course about a hypothetical future USA. This is almost a reality in Europe now. If keep going down the same path then we be in the same situation as Europe is in now in some future far off date. The most important concern right now is Europe.
at May 21, 2008 11:14 AM
Cornelius
I just don't agree Iraq will ever be pacified. Jihadist are born everyday and are raised in a nation where Islam is taught to them at an early age. The Islamic environment incubates future jihadist and Iraq is an Islamic habitat. You will never pacify Iraq unless you destroy the culture that creates them.
If Iraqis fight along side us it is for their own purposes, or for their groups interest, not our interest. The Shiites for example fight to produce a Shia state, or to promote whichever Shiite political faction they belong to. They have no interest in our goals or what we want except that we supply them with back up and with money. Same with those Sunnis in the west. Do you really think these folks are really helping us to be our allies, or just to protect themselves from the larger Shiite population. We are never going to be friends with any of these folks, because our values as Americans will always clash in a violent manner with their core values. The Quran shooting incident or the honor killing of that girl who fell for a British soldier are just examples of how our values will continue to collide into violence. The guy WORKS for the Iraqi government, and is not going to really be punished.
Another Example: Why do you think Sadr is still alive? Answer: Because the Shiites in the Iraqi army and government refuse to kill him. We could kill him, but then the Shiites will attack us. If we use Sunni forces or Kurdish forces then the Shiites will rise up. Thus Sadr lives and is a symbol of our weakness. There is just never going to be an end to this. The country will never be pacified.
If you really want to pacify Iraq, you will have to rip up the core values of that nation. That means political Islam will have to be crushed. That would mean a really violent struggle. Most Americans are not ready for that, so if we are not going to really make that effort then it is time to leave. We are just wasting our time and money.
As for alternative energy, we could spend the money we are using in Iraq to increase our own energy supplies. We could use coal conversion to oil as an emergency measure until we get a better alternative plan together. There are many other stop-gap measures we could use.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)