| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Let me list some of them:
1. The correct definition of "victory" in Iraq should be an outcome that weakens Islam -- the Camp of Islam and Jihad -- not only in Iraq but elsewhere. There is no other justification for spending two trillion dollars, and enduring 4,300 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded.
2. The Administration -- Bush, Rice, et al. -- and everyone who defends the policy of remaining in Iraq, never explains exactly how what is being attempted in Iraq, that is, the attempt to make the Shi'a government and the recently-dislodged-from-power Sunnis come to some accommodation, will make Infidels safer.
3. Those who have called this a "war on terrorism" have done terrible damage, for they have confused a tactic -- terrorism -- with a much larger problem. They have helped to keep Infidels largely unaware of what is going on in Western Europe, and of how the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, are the most effective and dangerous instruments of Jihad.
4. The war in Iraq, similarly, distracts and confuses, because it reinforces the idea that, even though Bush has called this an "ideological war," he still has conducted this war without any attempt at propaganda, or any attempt to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy. Rather, his policy is to repair those very weaknesses, to heal those sectarian and ethnic fissures in Iraq that could, if they were to continue unhealed (as they will, in the long run, in any case), damage the Camp of Islam and Jihad.
5. No one has been asked to explain why the two trillion dollars already spent in Iraq (and this includes the committed total future cost of lifetime care for tens of thousands of wounded) could not have been spent better on propaganda to sow discord in Islamic countries, and to pay for an energy policy -- subsidies to trains and busses, and for solar and wind energy, and for the building, by the government (for only the government can do it quickly, and to serve as the insurer) of dozens of nuclear reactors, that will be essential if the Muslim oil weapon is to sufficiently diminished in time to prevent further Muslim advances all over the world.
6. Many of those who have been forced to fight this war, or some of them, naturally cannot quite allow themselves to recognize what folly, what an ill-considered venture, it has been ever since early 2004. At that time the only legitimate goals -- getting rid of the regime and scouring the country for major weaponry (including that known by the shorthand WMD) -- had been met, and the goal of "bringing freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" had not yet been fixed upon. That new goal ignored how, in Islam, political legitimacy is defined (it is not defined as being justified because it may express the will of the governed). And this goal was a kind of consolation prize for not having found that weaponry that was the original cause, one was told, for the invasion.
7. The continued American presence in Iraq is damaging, and greatly, the American military. Young officers are leaving the regular army. Those joining the Reserves and the National Guard are not of the same level as those who joined ten years ago, or even five. Recruiting standards -- age, moral record, education -- have all changed, in response to the great difficulty in filling the army's monthly quotas. Nearly half the equipment that the National Guard relies on is in Iraq. Much of the regular military's equipment has, in Iraq, desert-degraded at a rate scarcely conceived of, and pegged by planners at a rate more suitable for non-desert environments. The morale of officers and men, especially of those who have served several times in Iraq, and are aware of the gap between how Bush and his men present the war and the splendid "Iraqi people" and the reality, has plummeted. The reality are the mendacious, meretricious, rapacious, Iraqis who are, on the whole, out to use the Americans against their own domestic enemies. They are also out to acquire whatever weaponry, know-how, and other aid they can manage to inveigle out of the Americans.
But they have no intention of becoming, and could not possibly be, permanent and trustworthy allies of the United States. It isn't possible. Muslims do not become allies and friends of Infidels. Occasionally their interests may overlap, and there can be most temporary collaboration, but that's it.
The colossal folly of Tarbaby Iraq is clear to many, including many officers and men. It is folly not because Islam is not a threat, but because it is.
Posted by Hugh at May 27, 2008 6:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Hugh:
I have to agree with one of the most crucial points you made above is the propaganda war. I believe this administration did a grave injustice to keep the public from the truth of Islam, and what actually is the tenets of this ideology, that drives the Jihadi and suicide bombers for the destruction of the west and other non Islamic countries. Secondly if there is sectarian violence well yes let it be. That as you pointed out will certainly weaken the camp of Islam.
Posted by: savsiv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 27, 2008 7:25 PM
There is no way that the American economy can sustain a prolonged conflict in Iraq. The current 1 Trillion dollars is tragic, in that the USA could have reached energy independence for 50% of that figure.
The US economy can not sustain such levels of war spending without cutting the legs off of its own economy. I don't mean we give up, but rather move to a cheaper Cold War strategy and engage in punative bombing as we did with Libya. It's cheaper and it has a better track record.
It's time to bring everyone home, take stock in what happened, then find a cheaper and more successful way to kick the crap out of these Jihadists.
It's time for an economic reality check, or in the end Osama Bin Laden is laughing in some cave. He will achieve the economic destruction of the USA with just a a few thousand zealots.
We can still convert to a synthetic fuel from coal economy. Canada has loads of uranium. Let's stop flogging a dead horse (Iraq War) and start the real Cold war against Jihadism.
Posted by: James Martel at May 27, 2008 7:34 PM
Can someone please explain why Iraq, with all its oil wealth, cannot pay for its own development at this point? Are we afraid of alienating the Iraqis, and Saudis, by asking?
This is the same adminstration whose State Department has approved of the Iranian takeover of Lebanon via Hezbollah as a positive development, aiding stability. When Iran takes over Iraq, maybe they'll but a similar gloss on it.
I agree with Savsiv re the lack of official explanation about the real significance of the War on Terror. But, let's face it, it's hard to explain something you don't really understand.
at May 27, 2008 8:04 PM
Hugh,
Once again, if you are going to write full posts as rebuttals to a discussion that has occurred elsewhere then please link to the original discussion, otherwise it may appear that you are using the main blog section of this site to force your viewpoint, and that this viewpoint, so strongly defended, is the official viewpoint of Jihad Watch, which would mean it is supported by Robert Spencer also.
Please note that I agree with much of your observations about Islam, however I strongly feel that some of your proposed strategies based on your knowledge, particularly your advocacy of withdrawal from Iraq, are amoral and dangerous. To give them such prominence on this site is counter productive and, I think, against the mandate of this site.
I don't come to "Jihad Watch" to have such heavy-handed exposure to your misguided policy proposals, but to find out what is happening on the global jihad, and to make my own mind up based on the comments of the posters. Perhaps if you had other contributors who would balance your extremism there would be more balance, but as it stands your extremism infects the entire site. Certainly, you have alienated me with your fundamentalist approach.
Perhaps the aim is to insulate Robert from extremism by pinning it on you, but if you are going to suggest policy proposals then it should be from a broad range of commentators to show that there are, in fact, many different strategies to dealing with the issue of political Islam.
If you cannot invite other contributors into this site then may I humbly suggest that you stop promoting your own policy agenda so strongly (and now so defensively) and get back to the educating your audience and let them decide on the merits of the information you give.
My comments are in the original discussion here.
Posted by: madijihadi at May 27, 2008 8:19 PM
Madijihadi,
Robert Spencer has made it very clear that he agrees with Hugh on the issue of Iraq.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 27, 2008 8:41 PM
- infidels will never be totally safe in any muslim country as long as they are allowed to include sharia law in their laws - their definition of Democracy is not our definition - and that is a basic problem. (muslims have so many alternate definitions for words, such as alternate definitions for peace, peace treaties, aggressor, oppressor, innocent, etc)
I agree with all of it otherwise. At the end - it comes to the same conclusion that I have come to - muslims cannot, due to their basic idiology, will never become true allies of any infidel nation. It might appear like they do, but it is more along the lines of how the saudis and Pakis do it - tell us one thing, take our money and do another.
I enjoyed this article, thanks.
Posted by: R_not at May 27, 2008 8:41 PM
From a post above by madijihadi: "I don't come to "Jihad Watch" to have such heavy-handed exposure to your misguided policy proposals..."
Madijihadi, if you are going to assert that Hugh's policy proposals are misguided, perhaps you would care to share with the rest of us where and why you think they have gone wrong and to offer solutions that you think are better. To offer blanket assertions such as yours do not further anyone's knowledge. I'm all ears.
Posted by: George Mc. at May 27, 2008 8:56 PM
I have already discussed my viewpoint on the previous thread: Isolate and exterminate the extremists, while providing ordinary people (those who use the Koran for spiritual, not political aims) with democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, equal opportunity and trade so they need not rely on religion for social order. All of this is currently happening, sucessfully, in Iraq. To turn back on this success, aside from the human cost of condemning people who finally have hope of improvement in their lives, would be a gross geopolitical mnistep, effectively handing the region to an empowered Iran.
----
From my previous post:
Perhaps the solutions you propose would make sense if our aim was to destroy Islam or if we were actually in a war with Islam. But that, despite your hopes, is not the situation, and it's not our goal.
The definition of victory is not to destroy Islam - it never was. It was to neutralise political Islam that manifested itself in terrorism against the U.S.
The benefits of a larger U.S. presence in the Middle East are enormous, and the costs are low. We have almost beaten Al-Quaeda, Iraqi forces have been trained to deal with extremists in their midst, and the rule of law has been restored. There's a long way to go, and political Islam will still be a problem for some time, but it will reduce as people see the benefits of democracy, equal rights, the rule of law and trade. It also keeps most of the conflict far from U.S. shores.
In addition, we have sent a message to other fundamentalist and dictatorial regimes that we will take action to remove extremists where necessary. We have managed to do this with very little cultural damage. If the worst they can complain of is that someone shot at a Koran then we are doing a good job.
---
Once again, there is a BIG difference between seeing a problem and applying a solution. Hugh thinks that because he can see one aspect of the problem clearly (Islam itself as the seed of political oppression) that he has the solution. But in this case, his solution is badly-formed and neither acceptable nor necessary.
at May 27, 2008 9:11 PM
Madijihadi, Hugh is more than capable of defending his position, so I won't even try. However, if you think that Iraq has democratic institutions and the rule of law, that our costs have been low, that political Islam will diminish as a threat as people see the benefits of democracy, that we have kept the conflict far from US shores, and that we have done this with little cultural damage, I have some swampland in Florida I'm sure you would be interested in. You need to quit smelling that stuff you are trying to sell. It's given you the vapors.
Posted by: George Mc. at May 27, 2008 9:41 PM
"Isolate and exterminate the extremists, while providing ordinary people (those who use the Koran for spiritual, not political aims) with democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, equal opportunity and trade so they need not rely on religion for social order."
Posted by: madijihadi at May 27, 2008 9:11 PM
Agreed 100%, although I would need a more deefinite definition of "extremists" otherwise this fallacious exercise looks quite similar to the democracy fooly in Iraq.
I agree with everything else you say, and am wondering just where in the Muslim world this concept will originate and take root?
I mean, with well over a billion Muslims worldwide, and buying into the concept that most Muslims can pick and choose what portions of Islam to subscribe to and which to ignore, namely the violent politically influenced parts, surely this can be accomplished, right?
You are indeed a provider of solutions and not merely flogging the problem of "political" Islam ad nauseum, so I ask you...What is the next move?
Surely, occupying Iraq further and giving credence to the recruitment propaganda of the "extremists" is no longer a viable option, after 5 years, right?
Or do you rather see the problem inherent in Islam as a permanent albatross for which the West, primarily the US, has to contend with?
Prying minds so desperately want to know, madijihadi.
Posted by: awake at May 27, 2008 9:44 PM
"If you cannot invite other contributors into this site then may I humbly suggest that you stop promoting your own policy agenda so strongly (and now so defensively) and get back to the educating your audience and let them decide on the merits of the information you give."
Oh, you can suggest away -- "humbly" or 'umbly or Uriah-Heepishly or even Uriah-Sheepishly -- all you want. Suggestion rejected.
Posted by: Hugh at May 27, 2008 9:48 PM
Yeah, Hugh!
What do you think you're doing "using the main blog section" to promote your own "viewpoint?"
Next thing you know you'll be using the content area for your content.
If you're not going to let other contributors in, you should just stick to the facts and let the audience decide.
How dare you have an opinion?
You should be more open-minded, like madijihadi.
Oy.
at May 27, 2008 9:56 PM
madijihadi, you are obviuosly counting on those great iraqi people to form a perfect union with liberty and justice for all. Remeber one thing, the USA and other western countries became democratic because thats what the people wanted, judeo-christian principles are supportive of democracies and freedom. you can't force muslims to be democratic when their own religion doesn't accept it. You can't get rid of islamic extremists because Muhammed, the perfect man and perfect lawgiver/ruler himself was authrotarian. Yes, you can kill all the al qaeda and muslim extremists but the source of their extremisim remains in the koran, their most revered book. a book they die for.
Posted by: desidude at May 27, 2008 9:59 PM
madijihadi, thank you for your contributions. my take is that hugh is an important voice. this site is his megaphone, as it seems that he will not publish a book, or perhaps no publisher will accept one.
i have the sense that robert spencer agrees with much of what hugh says, but feels that his (robert's) position as a public spokesman is made possible -- and is protected -- by having a less strident voice.
mainstream islam is bad enough; we need not restrict ourselves to speaking of the "extremists" who only put into practice what so many sympathize with.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 27, 2008 10:10 PM
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 27, 2008 10:10 PM
I have failed to see any noticable difference in position between Robert and Hugh, regarding Iraq.
Posted by: awake at May 27, 2008 10:17 PM
"Al Sadr: Let Iraqis decide on U.S. troops"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/27/iraq.alsadr/index.html
Democracy! You have to love it.
It appears someone is confident on what that result would be....
Anyway Hugh ia 100% right...when in doubt ask yourself: What would Hugh Fitzgerald do? He is the ONLY person, I have heard, who has any real strategy for winning this war. He notices the forest, unlike the stay in Iraq forever folks who only see ONE tree.
Posted by: greatcometof1577
at May 27, 2008 10:38 PM
madjihadi wrote:
"I have already discussed my viewpoint on the previous thread: Isolate and exterminate the extremists, while providing ordinary people (those who use the Koran for spiritual, not political aims) with democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, equal opportunity and trade so they need not rely on religion for social order. All of this is currently happening, sucessfully, in Iraq."
This argument may fly on the bush-bot-blogs, but not here. You imply that the political foundation of the new iraq has been purged of islam. You know -- or should know -- that this is utterly false. Article 2 of the iraqi constitution states, "First: Islam is the official religion of the State, and it is a fundamental source of legislation;" and "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established." So you see, the "rule of law" you speak of is in reality the rule of islam. And while, to use your words, many ordinary iraqis may use the koran for spiritual and not political aims, it does not follow that the political institutions will be democratic in nature. That would require that the will of the people would have the final say. But under the iraqi constitution, excerpted above, the final say lies w/ islam.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 27, 2008 10:40 PM
Madijihadi,
The idea here at JW/DW, as I understand it, is that policy toward the Islamic world should be based on respect for the belief system we are up against.
As it is, we don't respect Islam at all. Rather, we pretend Islam is something other than what is. We assume, against all historical and contemporary evidence, that because it is a "religion" it is fundamentally peaceful, and expect that our good works in Iraq and Kosovo and elsewhere will somehow transform Islam and Islamic culture into something benign. We then improvise policy based on such wishful thinking.
Among other nasty things, Mohammed a long time ago thought of how this kind of influence of good works might be used by infidels to "shake the faith" of his minions, and made explicit rules in the Koranic revelations to make sure that Muslims "take no friends or helpers" from among those infidels. He also specified that Muslims were permitted, for tactical advantage, to outwardly show friendship, while being required to forever maintain within their hearts an intense hatred for those infidels and infidel culture.
Mohammed made sure to assert in the Koranic revelations that those same revelations were not really Mohammed's rules, they were literally the rules of the almighty Allah, binding on Muslims for all time and in all places. And Mohammed closed the door on reform by making up the story that he himself was a prophet who had provided the "Seal of the Prophets," meaning that his revelations were the last and final revelations from Allah to mankind. So Mohammed cleverly closed off all hope of reform, from within or without, of Islam.
We have lost the war in Iraq. We lost it the day we permitted the Iraqis to include a clause in their constitution that nothing in that constitution would contradict Islamic law--that is, the Koran. That's the same Koran with the rule about not taking helpers from amongst the infidels, and the rule about nurturing an eternal hatred for infidels, and a host of other hostile, aggressive, supremacist, and genocidal rules. That's the same Koran that says make total war, by all means available, on infdels from now until Doomsday. (Imagine during WWII that we had overrun Germany and then let the Germans put Mein Kampf in their new constitution as the supreme law of their land.)
We are compounding that fundamental mistake by actually helping the Iraqis build Islamic schools and mosques, where this war manual the Koran is taught as the main subject, and where the next generation of mindless, scheming, and hate-filled cadres of jihadists are being trained today right under our noses. (Imagine our overrunning Germany in WWII, and then during postwar reconstruction, building Hitler youth camps and SS training centers all over that country--and also within our own country in order to better understand and be sensitive to Nazism, which we figure must have been hijacked by a few extremists like Goebbels and Goering--and having Mein Kampf be the main textbook in those schools and training centers).
To understand all this and to remain silent about current Iraq policy, or to be complicit in executing the current fantasy-based policy--that is what would be immoral and reprehensible.
In Iraq, through our "good works" we are actually helping the fascist cult called Islam to endure, to tighten its grip, and to spread according to its immutable Koranic imperatives. We are making sure that Islam will continue to terrorize and brutalize future generations of innocents in Iraq and all over the planet. That is failure writ large.
Hugh's policy prescriptions are based on reality. The core doctrines of Islam say make total war (war by all means available, collectively and individually) and perpetual war (from now until Doomsday) on the rest of humanity. We should respect that belief system and act accordingly to protect our nation and our friends. We should be weakening and isolating the Camp of Islam, not propping it up.
Posted by: Stendec at May 27, 2008 10:54 PM
madjihadi:
Well it is evident that all Islamic countries are a failure when it comes to democracy. There may be one or two exceptions in the Ummah. Democracy was given to Pakistan and Bangladesh both Islamic countries once the British left. However what happened both collapsed immediately. Looking at the rest of Ummah the whole of the Ummah is a total failure because Islam is a failure. Islam has failed to bring any peace, or hope. Nations that have based their governments and society of sharia and Islam are in a hopeless situation. Most of North Africa predominately Islamic are in a constant state of poverty, famine and civil war and war with neighboring states. The middle east constant state of war and chaos and suffering. Parts of India such Kashmir constant state of war and death. Thailand, Indonesia parts near Bali(which is Hindu), Philippines all in a constant state of violence. There is only one reason and that one reason is Islam. It is that simple Islam brings death, suffering and misery and poverty. Yes Islam has been successful in bringing about those aforementioned conditions on humanity which I certainly do not want and neither does any sane and informed humanbeing wants because Islam is unnatural. It goes against life and freedom of choice and human growth.
Posted by: savsiv at May 27, 2008 10:59 PM
madijihadi
"I don't come to "Jihad Watch" to have such heavy-handed exposure to your misguided policy proposals, but to find out what is happening on the global jihad, and to make my own mind up based on the comments of the posters. Perhaps if you had other contributors who would balance your extremism there would be more balance, but as it stands your extremism infects the entire site. Certainly, you have alienated me with your fundamentalist approach."
Oh! Oh! You are right!
We can have a dialogue! "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief War Plans" in the spirit of Galileo Galilei. You can play the critical role of Simplicio…
Shock and awe me!
at May 27, 2008 11:05 PM
'madijihadi' said, to Hugh:
"Perhaps the solutions you propose would make sense if our aim was to destroy Islam or if we were actually in a war with Islam".
"If we were actually in a war with Islam."
Well, we are. All one has to do is rephrase the hypothetical. Let's see how it sounds if we put it this way: "Perhaps the solutions you propose would make sense, if Islam's aim were to destroy us, or if Islam were actually making war on us".
Now: can anyone read the Quran, and significant texts within the Sira and the Hadith; who has read Bat Yeor and/or Andrew Bostom and/or Fregosi, or Zwemer, or K S Lal, or Trifkovic, or a hundred other historians past and present, not to mention such people as Joseph Schacht:
"The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; they must be either converted, or subjugated, or killed",
then reflect on the mountain of bloody evidence from all around the world, most recently in places like Madrid, Bali, London, Jaipur, Bombay, New York, a Jerusalem yeshiva, a Russian primary school (Beslan),
together with sermons and political speeches from a great many parts of the Islamosphere, during the past fifty years (just page through the MEMRI files!)
and then pretend that a very considerable portion of the dar-al-Islam is NOT consciously making war, by any and all means to hand, pen, purse, sword - and womb! - against the non-Muslim world?
And so, since a lot of Muslims ARE making war on us, with the full intent of destroying us - our freedoms, our religions, our arts and sciences, our churches, synagogues, temples, parliaments, our 'uncovered women', all that makes us non-Muslim - and restoring the seven hells of a Muslim caliphate under sharia law...which is precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood, and others, intend -
WE are, necessarily, at war with them.
at May 27, 2008 11:22 PM
A slight correction to the above:
for
Now: can anyone read the Quran, and significant texts within the Sira and the Hadith; who has read Bat Yeor and/or Andrew Bostom and/or Fregosi...
read
"Now, can anyone read the Quran, and significant texts within the Sira and the Hadith, together with Bat Yeor and/or Andrew Bostom and/or Fregosi..."
at May 27, 2008 11:27 PM
Hugh, do you want to turn the oilfields of Iraq over to Al Quaida and Iran? Or are we not allowed to consider that possibility becasue we don't want to be accused of "blood for oil"?
Posted by: dubrovnov at May 27, 2008 11:56 PM
Madijihadi said
If you cannot invite other contributors into this site then may I humbly suggest that you stop promoting your own policy agenda so strongly
I can imagine that an argument could be made that there are only a few "extremists" who have "enslaved" the "vast majority" of "moderate Muslims" with their "twisted" version of "politicalized Islam", and that most Iraqis are just like us and they just want the same things we do: democracy; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and all our other freedoms; equal rights for women and ethnic and religious minorities; and so on.
Might I humbly suggest that that argument be made where it could do the most good? Namely, on sites read by Iraqis and other Muslims? Why not convince them of the truth of your propositions? Think how much better the world will be after you convince them that Islam is the Religion of Peace, and that all this talk of violence is actually against the wishes of Allah. The force of your argument could cause jihadis all over Iraq to lay down their weapons as they slap their zebibah and mutter "How could I have gotten it so wrong?" No-one at JW/DW or anywhere else could be unhappy at such a proposition.
Posted by: special_guest at May 27, 2008 11:58 PM
From comment above:... while providing ordinary people (those who use the Koran for spiritual, not political aims) with democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, equal opportunity and trade so they need not rely on religion for social order.
You can't get blood out of a turnip...
Islam is not 'spiritual', but it is religious.
I don't think you can separate religious Islam, from political Islam. They are entwined. As long as Islam views itself and muslims as religiously 'superior', there will always be a struggle for political superiority as well. Dar al Islam has to war with dar al-harb as long as harb exists. There is no way out of that position...'Warfare is Ordained for you'. This is very religious, based on scripture, but it is not spiritual.
If the Quran were a 'spiritual' book to study,
if muslims studying it actually got 'spiritual',
maybe those things mentioned would have a chance. But that is not what happens in reality, studying the Quran creates psychosis and a blood thirst,
in believers, that we have witnessed enough times to know it exists.
That makes the above comment unrealistic and in error as far as I am concerned...They will not throw away their religion for better(?) social order...
at May 28, 2008 12:07 AM
"Hugh, do you want to turn the oilfields of Iraq over to Al Quaida [sic]and Iran? Or are we not allowed to consider that possibility becasue we don't want to be accused of "blood for oil"?"
-- from a posting above
The "oilfields" and also natural gas fields of the Middle East and North Africa, and some even further afield, are in the hands of Muslims already. The oilfields in Iraq are ours only to protect from attack, and to repair if they are attacked -- just one of the many services we provide, so helpfully, to the corrupt government, and mostly hostile people of Iraq (not "the Iraqi people").
The scare-scenario you offer is absurd. How would the handful of Sunnis, foreign and domestic, who constitute Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia manage to seize the oilfields, which are either deep in Shi'a-populated territory in the south or in the Kurdish-dominated land in the north? You can make up this preposterous scenario to prevent thought by others about the nature of Tarbaby Iraq, but this argument cuts no ice with me.
Similarly, you seem to think that if the Americans leave, if the Sunnis of Al Qaeda don't somehow manage to seize the oilfields (how? with what means? with what support? from whom?), presumably unopposed (why do you think if the Americans leave they must promise never to return, with missiles and planes? Is there a special rule that will prevent them from ever doing anything again in Iraq if they feel they need to? Who made up this rule?), then Iranian forces will do so.
Why do you say this? On what basis do you believe that the Shi'a Arabs of Iraq, who fought against Iran for eight years (admittedly pressed into doing it by their largely Sunni officer class, but there were no large-scale defections), will be delighted to see the one source of wealth that the government of Iraq, which at long last they now control, be taken over by Iran? How likely is it that the Iranians will be able to accomplish this? Do they possess better equipment and better armed services than the Americans? Are they more mobile?
But even if one were, just for the hell of it, to suggest that Iran might take over some of those oilfields, then what? The same oil will be sold to the same customers, at the same market price, will it not? And if the revenues go to Iran, that may help it pay for its armed forces that would necessarily be occupying parts of Iraq, and would be subject to attack just as the American forces have been. The new revenues would be used to pay for the new expenses to support that occupying force.
The point is that it hardly matters which Muslim states are getting the revenue. The proper task for Infidels is to diminish the revenues of all Muslim states, for they are all malevolent, even if it is possible to see Saudi Arabia and Iran as, at present, the most malevolent and most dangerous. The revenues received by Libya, by Algeria, by the United Arab Emirates, by Kuwait and Qatar, are also going to strengthen the Camp of Islam.
Undue worry over what might happen, when all we know is this -- that the Sunnis will never acquiesce in the transfer of power to the Shi'a, and the Shi'a will never give the Sunni Arabs of Iraq what they demand. How open and how widespread hostlities will be, and what amounts of men, money, and materiel will be sent to various groups inside Iraq from co-religionists outside Iraq, are not things we can predict.
But some possible outcomes are far more unlikely than others, and even were what you suggest as to Iran were to come true, it would happen only in the context of a prolonged, and possibly endless war of attrition, by Iraqis against Iranians, whether the former are Sunnis alone, or Sunnis and Shi'a. And for the West it doesn't much matter; what matters is mostly the total take of the Muslim and Arab states. That total take needs to be reduced. Period.
Posted by: Hugh at May 28, 2008 12:17 AM
“Please note that I agree with much of your observations about Islam, however I strongly feel that some of your proposed strategies based on your knowledge, particularly your advocacy of withdrawal from Iraq, are amoral and dangerous. To give them such prominence on this site is counter productive and, I think, against the mandate of this site.”
“I don't come to "Jihad Watch" to have such heavy-handed exposure to your misguided policy proposals, but to find out what is happening on the global jihad, and to make my own mind up based on the comments of the posters. Perhaps if you had other contributors who would balance your extremism there would be more balance, but as it stands your extremism infects the entire site. Certainly, you have alienated me with your fundamentalist approach.”
Posted by: madijihadi
Firstly madi, I agree with most of what you said, certainly the “withdrawal from Iraq is dangerous” part – probably not the “amoral” part – I am a practical guy. So don’t pretend you are all alone here – some of us are courageous enough (or foolish enough) to pick a fight with the grand guru and as many acolytes who will defend him, on a point or two that we feel strongly about.
Secondly, this is the “Big Wide World”. Those past puberty may occasionally be faced with “heavy-handed exposure to (others) misguided policy proposals”
My suggestions:
Stop whining and
“Grow a set” and state your arguments as clearly as you can!
I could use some help here! So let us begin.
“you can't force Muslims to be democratic when their own religion doesn't accept it.”
Posted by: desidude
Yes we can and we have. While “no law may be made that contravenes sharia” is written into the Iraqi Constitution so is “no law that contravenes democracy”. So, we all know there is a conflict here. As long as American “boots are on the ground” democracy will not become extinct in Iraq.
This is as it was in Imperial Japan, which had NO history of democracy in its history – it was MANDATED by the U.S. Government and ENFORCED by the U.S. G.I. Seems to be working just fine!
“And while, to use your words, many ordinary Iraqis may use the Koran for spiritual and not political aims, it does not follow that the political institutions will be democratic in nature. That would require that the will of the people would have the final say. But under the Iraqi constitution, excerpted above, the final say lies w/ Islam.”
Posted by: sheik yer booty
Ah but it DOES follow that “the political institutions will be democratic in nature.” This is because IT IS WRITTEN INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION and this will be guaranteed as long as Infidel warriors have their “boots on the ground”.
Contemplate this fact for a moment, you KNOW it must enrage and humiliate the Jihadis. What do you suppose the young men say amongst themselves when the Jihadis come a’ recruitin’? Do you think these young men don’t see what is so plainly before them – the INFIDEL ensuring safety and rule of law and the JIHADI bringing chaos, murder and death? Think they don't talk about it - hummm?
Our very presence sends an irrefutable message – just as our retreat would also.
“We have lost the war in Iraq. We lost it the day we permitted the Iraqis to include a clause in their constitution that nothing in that constitution would contradict Islamic law—“
“We are compounding that fundamental mistake by actually helping the Iraqis build Islamic schools and mosques, where this war manual the Koran is taught as the main subject, and where the next generation of mindless, scheming, and hate-filled cadres of jihadists are being trained today right under our noses. “
Posted by: Stendec
The first point is foolish for the “war in Iraq” is at our discretion to win or loose. That is what we are discussing here, make no mistake, we are not defeated, if we loose it will be because, once again, we foolishly CHOOSE TO LOOSE. (even if it WAS a stupid decision to let them include sharia in their constitution.)
The second point is right on target and a valid criticism of our strategy. We should be guiding THOSE THAT WE HAVE CONQUERED away from Islam in every creative way that we can imagine – for our own benefit, as much as for theirs.
“Thailand, Indonesia parts near Bali(which is Hindu), Philippines all in a constant state of violence. There is only one reason and that one reason is Islam. It is that simple Islam brings death, suffering and misery and poverty. Yes Islam has been successful in bringing about those aforementioned conditions on humanity which I certainly do not want and neither does any sane and informed human being wants because Islam is unnatural. It goes against life and freedom of choice and human growth.”
Posted by: savsiv
All so very true. Note savivs last lines
“…Islam is unnatural. It goes against life and freedom of choice and human growth.”
Which is EXACTLY why we will win if we hold to the ideals of “western democracy” and why we will loose if we do not ACTIVELY PROMOTE them. If we are honest with ourselves, we KNOW this is the right thing to do – no matter how difficult.
"Perhaps the solutions you propose would make sense if our aim was to destroy Islam or if we were actually in a war with Islam".
"If we were actually in a war with Islam."
“Well, we are.”
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
It is here that we must part dear madi, for dumbledoresarmy is dead on target, we ARE in a war with Islam madi, WE ARE.
at May 28, 2008 1:26 AM
Dumbledore's army,
It is a serious logical fallacy to think that because someone thinks they are at war with you, that you are at war with them. The ones who are attacked can ALWAYS choose their response.
It is a tactic of any attacker to try to widen any conflict, and bolster their numbers, by trying to draw in people who are in the middle ground. By making the fight beween two huge blocks the extremists can wield more power.
One of the core methods is to define the enemy as a single block. The jihadis do this by railing at a common enemy, America and Israel. Similarly, people like Hugh refer to ALL muslims being the enemy. All are irredeemable. They say the Koran is intrinsically evil (even if the vast majority don't use it for anything more than spiritual solace).
Hugh has gone beyond educating people that the Koran is the source of political Islam to preaching that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and, by extension, that all Muslims are our enemies. This has led to his absurd conclusions.
His rhetoric is similar to the extremists on the other side becaue he has the same goal, to divide and define the people in the middle into either "Muslim" or "Infidel" -- no middle ground therefore easier to efine and easier to fight. Just as extremist leaders in Muslim countries gain power from those who shout "Death to America" Hugh gains power from the people who agree with his clever demagoguery and post here in agreement seeking the total destruction of Islam.
Understand this: However justified you may feel, howevermuch you dislike the Koran, howevermuch you dislike Sharai, by saying you are at war with Islam you are simply playing into the jihadi's hands. They want the war to be us vs them. But we don't need to play by their rules.
Despite the apparent hopes of some people on this site, we are not at war with ALL Muslims, nor should we be. We are at war with extremist leaders and their core supporters who would use Islam for political ends. The vast majority of Muslims are not at war with us, and to insult or goad one billion of them into being against us is not good policy. It's suicidal.
(That is also why the State Department is correct to downplay the link between terroism and Islam. It may be technically correct, but it is not politically useful.)
As I said on another thread, rather that using "You're either with us or against us" logic we should use, and are using, the cleverer "If you are not actively against us, you are with us."
Elimination and isolation of extremists, and replacement of their power structures by improvements in democratic institutions, human rights, the rule of law, more trade, freedom of speech combined with education of Muslims and non-Muslims alike about the dangers of political Islam are all tools we can use.
The modern world is the real enemy of Islam and the more we expose citizens of those countries to the benefits of the modern world the more they will think of Islam as irelevant -- useful for wedding and deaths, just as people in the West have abandoned militant Christianity as their rights, education and economic conditions improved
Sheikyerbooty,
I am also disappointed that the Iraqi and Afghani constitutions have "Islam is the source of law" provision, but I understand why -- because to remove it at this point is not politically acceptable.
However I am heartened by the provisions for religious freedom, democracy and human rights that are also written into the constitution, and which provide a basis for debate in the years to come.
It is unrealistic to think that deep changes in society can be made overnight. I note that Davegreybeard brought up Japan -- it's an instructive example. Up to and through the Second World War the Japanese Emperor was worshiped as a God. He embodied the state religion and was used by extremist leaders to carry out an expansionist, totalitarian war in God's name. After Japan's defeat there were many calls for the Emperor's execution as a war criminal, but it was felt prudent to keep him in place so that the stability of society was preserved, and to provide a butress against the growing Soviet threat. The pragmatists won out over the fundamentalists. Japan remained stable and grew into an important ally. Now the Emperor is seen as an oddity, a relic from the past.
In Japan, the people rejected a warlike religion and moved into the modern world. Despite the naysayers, the same will happen in Iraq.
Posted by: madijihadi at May 28, 2008 2:13 AM
Davegreybeard said
So don’t pretend you are all alone here – some of us are courageous enough (or foolish enough) to pick a fight with the grand guru and as many acolytes who will defend him, on a point or two that we feel strongly about.
Yes, we've got Robert and Hugh on our side, but you've got the President and most (all?) of his cabinet on your side. And the British Prime Minister. And the mainstream media. And all the "Middle East Experts". A majority of the blogosphere. And a large minority of public opinion. They all agree that "the surge is working", "victory is almost at hand", "withdrawal means defeat". You're not exactly out on a limb by yourselves.
All's we got is JW/DW. Let's face it, where else can you find the sublime horrible truth of a sentence such as Hugh's:
The point is that it hardly matters which Muslim states are getting the revenue. The proper task for Infidels is to diminish the revenues of all Muslim states, for they are all malevolent, even if it is possible to see Saudi Arabia and Iran as, at present, the most malevolent and most dangerous.
Davegreybeard also said
dumbledoresarmy is dead on target, we ARE in a war with Islam madi, WE ARE.
Agree 100%, and it's not a war of our choice.
at May 28, 2008 2:17 AM
As I recall, the original thrust of madijihadi's post (from yestderday's Diana West article) dealt with coalition forces on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Everything Hugh says is correct, but is beyond the scope of the Private's Smith and the Captain's Jones in country, and in combat.
They haven't the right, the obligation, or the permission (no matter what they might really know} to tell the Muslims they're working with that Islam is a hoax and the root of their misery.
Nor would doing so make the mission they're saddled with any easier.
The failure that got us, as a nation, into this mess is the civilian and upper echelon military leadership that shamefully refused to do the research needed to understand the enemy, and the journalists who allowed them to get away with that.
And, I beg to differ, we are NOT at war with Islam. Islam is an ideology.
We are at physical war with some Muslims; not all of them, but many of them.
Posted by: PRCS at May 28, 2008 2:55 AM
madijihadi you’re lettin’ me down, buddy.
Hugh and Robert can certainly speak for themselves (and probably will) but my impression is that they do not view “all Muslims as the enemy”. If you think that I hold this view you are mistaken.
Let us take things one at a time so that we may understand each other.
Islam is a militant religion that preaches the total domination of the human race.
The Qur’an contains the essence of this totalitarian religion, which is augmented and explained by the Hadith and the Sirat Rasul Allah.
This religion is extremely detrimental to human progress and prosperity as it advocates the murder and subjugation of the “Infidel”, the subjugation of women, deceit, revenge and Jihad. As such the religon is a menace to human society and is “evil”.
A Muslim may or may not be an “enemy” and may or may not be “evil”. Just as all Germans were not “evil” even though they may have been Nazis. But just as Nazi ideology led many Nazis to do evil things, so Islam leads many Muslims to do evil things.
The thing to do is to try and separate as many Muslims from their religion as possible as efficiently as possible. Once a Muslim has achieved sufficient distance from his religion he may become a very helpful ally.
To recap:
Islam is inherently evil – Muslims may or may not be.
at May 28, 2008 2:57 AM
madijihadi said
Hugh has gone beyond educating people that the Koran is the source of political Islam to preaching that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim
You'll really have to curb that inclination to restate Hugh and/or Robert's positions in ways that are just plain false.
Robert has written on the subject of "moderate Muslims" here and here, and has said plainly and repeatedly:
there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam
Hugh being Hugh, there is no similar 10-word summary, but he discusses the topic at length here and here.
Nowhere in any of these articles or any of their many other articles and books do either Robert or Hugh say that "there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim".
You are making up words to put into their mouths, and in the interest of honest discourse, you really should stop.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2008 3:04 AM
Thanks for pointing out all the friends I have special_guest , but I really don’t recall receiving ANY help here from “The President” or “all his cabinet” or “the British Prime Minister” or “the mainstream media” or "Middle East Experts” or “A majority of the blogosphere” (what is the “blogosphere” anyway?)
As a matter of fact the ONLY blog I frequent is right here, with you!
I also hold Hugh in very high regard, which all those other folks mostly don’t.
So, nice try special_guest, but this Cat just won’t herd – never would.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 28, 2008 3:19 AM
The problem of the West's proper posture vis a vis Islam goes way beyond merely understanding its ideology, although that's a necessary start.
A moment's search on the Internet uncovered the following interesting tidbit
http://www.homelandsecurityresearch.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=32
Download the report titled "Saudi Arabia Homeland Security 2009-2018" for an eye opening glimpse into proposals by Western companies such as BAE, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, SAIC, General Dynamics to provide high tech security for the Hajj (!!), high tech border fences between SA and Iraq, Yemen, etc.
Reading this over leaves one with the depressing realization that Western businesses (you can be sure that EU and Asian companies have their equivalent business plans) have been heavily influenced by the prospect of profits from nearly unlimited SA money. This also helps explain the State Department's positions regarding not using language that might offend Muslim business partners. And it tells you with high probability some of what was discussed during Bush's recent trip to SA.
The business community is quite willing to deal with SA if the price is right, so it will not be easy to disengage from the ME when such corporations are willing to cozy up to the Saudis. One suspects that one of the State Department's fundamental duties is, in fact, to look out for the interests of these companies. In fact, one might suppose that one of their guiding principles was articulated by Charles Wilson, president of GM, who in confirmation hearings to become secretary of defense under Eisenhower, famously said "...what is good for the country is good for GM, and vice versa."
Hugh, it would be great if you could bring your considerable acumen to bear on this aspect of the West's war with Islam. The business side of the struggle is just as important as the military side.
at May 28, 2008 3:25 AM
Jeez, Davegreybeard, I wasn't trying to herd you, just trying to cheer you up.
As for the President et al not blogging here, sometimes I imagine that one of the madijihadis (or likeminded bloggers) is actually W., trying to drum up support for his policies. Well, based on the vocabulary level, maybe Cheney or Rice.
Anyways, don't feel lonely, you've got plenty of folks on your side, and they're mostly the movers and shakers of the world.
As for the "blogosphere", it's right above the stratosphere, only it's filled with hot air.
Posted by: special_guest at May 28, 2008 3:36 AM
MADIJIHADI: "Similarly, people like Hugh refer to ALL muslims being the enemy. All are irredeemable."
Listen friend, Hugh and I have been arguing over Iraq for 2 years now, so don't think you're alone. But you have to let the debate run its course. I've been chastened by both Robert and Hugh over Iraq, but they've never tried to silence my opposition by banning me or such.
Meanwhile, there is some truth to the above quote you made. For example, Hugh wants to terminate all aid to Jordan's King Abdullah because the monarch isn't compliant enough for his (Hugh's) standards. My point is that however imperfect, Abdullah is infinitely preferable to the pro-Syrian, pro-Hamas regime that would probably replace him.
It's the same in Iraq and Afghanistan; Hugh wants to cut Karzai and Maliki loose, leaving them to their respective fates. I believe both are preferable to the regimes (Taliban in Afghan. and probably a radical, Iranian-aligned Shia regime in Iraq) that would replace them.
Hugh always emphasizes the ethnic and sectarian differences in the Muslim world, but seems impervious to the IDEOLOGICAL differences. In short, some Muslims ARE preferable to others.
There are certainly some legitimate arguments for leaving Iraq, first and foremost that it is simply not worth the blood and treasure it is costing us. My problem with Hugh's thesis is that he postulates that leaving Iraq and Afghanistan will be BENEFICIAL to US national security interests. It is possible things will play out in Iraq exactly as he anticipates. But there are hundreds of variables...and a distinct one is that the most radical, violent elements in the Muslim world, Al Qaeda, Iran (through agents like Al Sadr) or both, will emerge with territory and oil-revenue and use Iraq as a base to spread their ACTIVE Jihad and even establish the new Caliphate.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 28, 2008 6:59 AM
Pulling out of "Iraq quickly will cause a huge mistake, first of all it will create a Vietnam losing mentality upon the Amer.people. \it will make the islamists appear the victor therefore will aid them in recruiting more followers. Leaving Iraq does not indentify the problem as "islam".
This process of taming the ME will take much longer, as compared to Japan where they nuked them twice, and there was actually a country's military destroyed. By remaining in Iraq will keep the islamists nuts and will eventually able to identify to the MSM , politicians elites (the joe public knows) who is causing the problem, aka its islam!
at May 28, 2008 7:07 AM
Hugh, I decry the more extreme Muslims and even have the lack of courtesy to call them Mohammedans over their failure to find a way to adapt Islam to more modern times. I often do this rather stridently and decidedly not politically correctly.
On this site criticizing you is pretty much politically incorrect and called for. You appear to be very tone deaf to the Iraq situation, war, whatever you want to call it.
From reading this site I've formed a strong opinion that the best way to defeat Neanderthal Islam is to show its victims there is a better way. Spreading strong criticism merely feeds their hyper-sensitive sense of persecution. Ridicule performs the same service as much as it satisfies our souls. But quietly supporting the common Arab's desire to have a peaceful life consistent with a sense of honor and self-respect while showing them there is a better way will severely damage the ability for the extremists to recruit new idiots.
Idiots will always exist. But if we teach the Iraqi on the street how to resist such people we'll show them our big secret for getting along. Criticism is OK. Compulsion is not. Respect for others is OK. Blowing others to peaces is not.
While it is painfully obvious that the period between the fall of Osama and the beginning of The Surge was an unmitigated poorly planned and even more poorly executed disaster I have to note that The Surge, the counter insurgency effort, is precisely on the mark.
We are showing the Iraqis two important points. First there is a better way to live. And second we are teaching them how to maintain that way of life for themselves.
The longer this continues more obvious the dichotomy between this new and better way of life and "Mohammedanism" and sharia becomes.
If we are going to win this 1400 year conflict between sanity and insanity we need to wean the inmates of the ideological Mohammedan asylum away from that ideology. Showing them there is a better way is more likely to change their attitudes than any criticism, cartoons, or ridicule. Those are tools for later on in the conflict after a larger base SEES for themselves that Mohammedanism is a broken ideal. Then they might turn and be able to save Islam by moving it into a more modern reality or by discarding it completely.
If having 27 million Arabs in the middle of the Islamic world the majority of whom are coming to the realization that there is a better way is not a very strong and basic threat to Islam, what is?
{^_^}
Posted by: jdow at May 28, 2008 7:57 AM
"Al Sadr: Let Iraqis decide on U.S. troops"
Here's a revolutionary idea: let's let Americans decide on US troops in Iraq.
Of course it can be said we make those decisions through our representatives and that direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't get to take a vote (say in November) on a national referendum. It could even be non-binding. Put all Americans on record. Many Democrats might support our presence in Iraq, though they would never vote for a Republican representative. Many Republicans might oppose our presence, even though their representative supports it. Our votes are dictated by a menagerie of issues. It's not all about the war. So let's have a referendum about Iraq in order to get a clear measure.
What would Iraqis do if the bulk of Americans decided it was time to vacate Abraham's birthplace and let the area fester? Might even the specter of such an outcome be enough to make them get on the move?
at May 28, 2008 8:20 AM
When President Bush and his administration profess the usual Islamic talking points, such as, "Islam is a religion of peace", et cetera, I really believe they are lying to us. And that goes for most of the other current politicians and those seeking office. I do not believe it is due to their naivete. I believe it is willful. They know that what they are saying is not true. But they do it because of their own personal interests, whatever it is, most likely having some financial incentives. You never know who are pulling the strings of the politicians of today. Every 2 and 4 years they come out and get us all worked-up about irrelevant issues so as to get our votes. Yes, the voting public put the politicians into office. However, when it comes to government responsibility and responsiveness, it is not with the voters where their interests lie. Those interests often run counter to the larger interests of the country and our civilization. That is how I see it.
Posted by: norman at May 28, 2008 9:00 AM
(That is also why the State Department is correct to downplay the link between terroism and Islam. It may be technically correct, but it is not politically useful.)
Posted by: madijihadi at May 28, 2008 2:13 AM
And here is a perfect example of why this war in Iraq has not gone as planned. It is a failure to clearly and accurately define the enemy we are fighting.
They are in direct terms, Muslims who believe in Islamic supremacism and the path of jihad, which is directly attributable to and mandated by Islam's canonical texts and considered obligatory for all pious Muslims as mandated by Allah.
End of story.
The war in Iraq should have ended the minute Hussein was pulled out of that spider hole. Instead we have a failed attempt at nation building, by trying to establish a sharia based democracy which is oxymoronic at its basest level.
the US is not and never should have been obliged to lay down life and limb, and countless trillions, to try to trick millions of Muslims to abandon their faith. That premise is nonsensical.
Another setback to this "war" is that like some commenters here at this site are caught in a moral conundrum. They are in the "we broke it, we own it crowd." This is more nonsense. War and morality are not now nor have they ever been compatible.
The US has the charge to defend itself against the threat that Islam poses, a threat that even the highest levels in the current administration do not comprehend.
Another commenter talked about people we "conquered" in Iraq. Somehow I don't think the current administration holds the same view.
at May 28, 2008 9:02 AM
Comment from above: From reading this site I've formed a strong opinion that the best way to defeat Neanderthal Islam is to show its victims there is a better way.
Good luck with that. When you already have perfection, a 'better way' does not exist.
From Islams point of view, even suggesting such a thing is an insult...
at May 28, 2008 9:18 AM
Davegreybeard & his new buddy, madjihadi, base their hopes & optimism for democratizing iraq in no small measure on our success in Japan post WWII. There is no historical parallel. After the war, the Japanese emperor told the Japanese people to co-operate with the Americans. mohammad, the comparable figure for islam, isn't around to tell the iraqis to accept democracy. Secondly, the complete defeat of Japan thoroughly discredited every ideological underpinning of Japanese Imperialism, including emperor-worship. Far from discrediting islam, our defeat of the iraqi army was both preceded & followed by statements by the CiC of the American "victors" that islam is a great religion that all Americans respect. Finally, & perhaps most importantly, after their defeat in WWII, Japan had no friends in the world. zero. zilch. (Despite the horror of 2 atom bombs we dropped on them, the Japanese knew the U.S. would be their best hope for putting their country back together. You think Russia would have helped out Japan after the war? What about China? Or Korea?) Japanese Imperialism didn't exist outside of Japan. Nor did emperor-worship. in iraq, in contrast, shi'a & sunni have many friends in neighboring countries. And iraq sits smack dab in the middle of that huge land mass known as dar al islam.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 28, 2008 10:55 AM
Sheikyerbooty
Your history is flawed. There was a very strong communist movement in Japan at the end of the war, which was lessened by keeping the Emperor in place. The communists had friends in many countries and were supported by the Soviets.
Our active intervention allowed the Japanese people to realise the benefits of democracy. You can also look at the diference between North and South Korea or East and West Germany to see what happens when people are given a political structure in which they can thrive. Sadly, we are so used to our freedoms that we dont see the value of them to people who don't have them.
While you say that no-one is around to tell the Iraqis to accept democracy, they seemed quite happy to actually get out by themselves and vote in the elections. The government they voted for is now actively reining in extremist groups.
Posted by: madijihadi at May 28, 2008 11:25 AM
madjihadi wrote:
"Your history is flawed. There was a very strong communist movement in Japan at the end of the war, which was lessened by keeping the Emperor in place. The communists had friends in many countries and were supported by the Soviets."
Admittedly, my knowledge of post-WWII Japanese history isn't particularly deep, but that won't stop me from challenging your assertion that the communist movement in Japan in August 1945 was "very strong," which I take to mean a legitimate, as opposed to theoretical, threat to the American occupation. Did the communists at any time gain national political power in Japan after the war? Was there widespread labor unrest fomented by communists? were there any attacks on American military or civilian personnel or Japanese "collaborators" organized by the communists? If none of these occurred, or if they did occur, were isolated incidents, then I don't see how you can argue that the communist movement in Japan after August 1945 was "very strong."
Therefore, to the extent that there was a communist movement in Japan at war's end, it was not strong, but rather weak. The fact that the relatively few adherents to a weak movement had friends in other countries in the region is not at all comparable to the situation in iraq, where nearly 100% of the religious/ethnic groups (shi'a, sunni & Kurds) have cohorts just across the border, & throughout the region.
You also wrote:
"Our active intervention allowed the Japanese people to realise the benefits of democracy. You can also look at the diference between North and South Korea or East and West Germany to see what happens when people are given a political structure in which they can thrive."
Democracy is incompatible w/ islam, period. In a contest between a 1350 year-old religious/political/social tradition (namely, islam) & an alien political ideology that was imposed just 4 years ago by infidels, who are despised by muslims, and that leaves islam intact, I'll put my money on the eventual triumph of islam over democracy, rather than vice-versa. I wouldn't put too much stock in those very un-islamic human rights that are guaranteed in the iraqi constitution. The old USSR "guaranteed" human rights, too.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at May 28, 2008 12:31 PM
Take a look at this graph which compares how much is spent on the Iraq War with how much is spent for solar and wind energy.
If only one hundreth of the Iraq war spendings would be spent on renewable energies, the Americans wouldn't need any more oil from the Middle East.
Posted by: dee at May 28, 2008 1:03 PM
The government they voted for is now actively reining in extremist groups.
Posted by: madijihadi at May 28, 2008 11:25 AM
I would love to hear your definition of "extremist" groups, that Maliki, in between hand holding sessions with Ahmadinejad and negotiating with al-Sadr, is actively reining in.
The US has and continues to do most of the heavy lifting in weeding out this group of "extremists", a group that has taken longer to subdue than Germany in WW II.
Posted by: awake at May 28, 2008 1:15 PM
"The point is that it hardly matters which Muslim states are getting the revenue. The proper task for Infidels is to diminish the revenues of all Muslim states, for they are all MALEVOLENT, even if it is possible to see Saudi Arabia and Iran as, at present, the most malevolent and most dangerous. The revenues received by Libya, by Algeria, by the United Arab Emirates, by Kuwait and Qatar, are also going to strengthen the Camp of Islam." by High Fitzgerald
This is why Hugh has been right from day one, and best understands the war we are fighting. If you accept that the goal of the Islamic world is to spread their civilization across the world, then staying in Iraq makes no sense and here is why. They have only one real consistent economic resource that can fund both the “fast” and “slow” jihad (aka violent and demographic jihad), which is oil money. Now that money is going back into the “jihad engine” no matter if we stay in Iraq, or leave it. We have done nothing to stop that flow, but instead we done everything in our power to keep it going. By staying in Iraq, by giving them security, by helping them, we are in fact helping fund jihad (in an indirect way) against ourselves! We are propping up an economic system that makes the Islamic world stronger.
at May 28, 2008 1:15 PM
“As for the "blogosphere", it's right above the stratosphere, only it's filled with hot air.”
Posted by: special_guest
LOL!! Thanks for the cheer special_guest, sometimes (after the fact of course) I find that I might have taken myself a little to seriously.
“Anyways, don't feel lonely, you've got plenty of folks on your side, and they're mostly the movers and shakers of the world.”
I dun’no, they got me REALLY worried about their apparently WILLFUL ignorance of Islam.
at May 28, 2008 1:56 PM
"If having 27 million Arabs in the middle of the Islamic world the majority of whom are coming to the realization that there is a better way is not a very strong and basic threat to Islam, what is?
-- from a posting above
First, about those "27 million Arabs" you describe as liviing in Iraq. Let's break that down:
These "Arabs" are not all Arabs.
There are \six million or more Kurds living in Iraq. Thanks to American air cover from 1991 on, the Kurds were able to live without the threat of mass-murder from Saddam Hussein (and those "Arabs" in Iraq and outside Iraq who, as Kanan Makiya has noted, never uttered a syllable of protest at Operation Anfal, and the 182,000 Kurds murdered by Arab troops). Because they feel their Kurdishness so strongly, and because they are keenly aware of what they have suffered from Arabs, they are also more likely to understand, or at least be amenable to understanding, that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism. And that realization needs to be encouraged, in all sorts of ways, among not only the Kurds but also the Berbers, and not only the Berbers, but also the black African Muslims in Darfur and elsewhere. For if the advances of Islam are to be halted and then pushed back in sub-Saharan Africa, it will be important to publicize the Arab view of blacks, and the history of the Arab slave trade, and the present-day Arab enslavement of blacks in the Sudan and Mauritania and even, one has good reason to suspect, deep within Darkest Saudi Arabia (where slavery was formally abolished, because of Western pressure, only in 1962, at a time when there were still hundreds of thousands of -- mostly black -- slaves, and where there is evidence that some Saudi masters treat many of their workers not merely as cruelly-treated wage-slaves butsimply as slaves). And all of this connects to Kurdistan, and the usefulness of an example of a non-Arab Muslim people throwing off the Arab yoke.
What about the remaining "Arabs" in that group? As almost every schoolboy now knows, those Arabs are both Sunni and Shi’a. One schoolboy who did not know, however, was George Bush, who as President of the United States, hearing someone mention “the Sunniis and the Shi’a in Iraq”interjected, in a state of some confusion, “I thought they were all Muslims.” The Sunnis make up about 19% of the population of Iraq, which means even less of the total Arab population. The Shi’a, however, who have over the entire history of modern Iraq steadily outbred the Sunnis and also had some success in converting Sunnis to Shi’a Islam. The Sunnis are outraged at this, and refuse to accept the true figures, claiming that they constitute “at least” 42% of the population (perhaps they first count all the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni, as Sunni Arabs, and then begin, as the Arabs so often do about so many things, to believe their own propaganda).
The Shi’a, on the other hand, constitute at least 65% of the population of Iraq, which means they are well over 4/5 of the Arab population. So they outnumber the Sunni Arabs roughly 4 to 1. However, the Sunnis always formed the officer corps, before Ba’athism, and after, and have historically been more aggressive than the Shi’a (who, after all, have a religio-mytholigical narrative of suffering, to both sustain and to mold them). So a future fight between Sunnis and Shi’a would not be quite so lopsided as it might appear.
I’ve left out the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans, who constitute the two large Christian groups, and the tiny Mandeans, and the Turcomans, of whom there are about a million.
But I think the point has been proven: Iraq is not a country whose population is adequately described by the phrase “27 million Arabs.”
And if you fail to identify the different and mutually hostile groups, you leave out the essence of Iraq, and the essence of what the Administration sees as a problem to be solved and as I have argued, as a situation to be exploited.
But your assertion, which in full read thus:
"If having 27 million Arabs in the middle of the Islamic world the majority of whom are coming to the realization that there is a better way is not a very strong and basic threat to Islam, what is?”
has something else wrong with it, besides that “27 million Arabs” business. When you say that the “majority” (of which? The Sunnis? The Shi’a? The Sunnis and the Shi’a? The Arabs only? The Kurds only? The Arabs and the Kurds?) “are coming to the realization that there is a better way” and that this “realization” that they are coming to “is a very strong and basic threat to Islam” then I have to stop you right there and ask you to please tell me in what that “better way” consists, and how it is different from, a possible alternative to, Islam?
The Sunni Arabs and the Shi’a Arabs give no signs of abandoning Islam. If anything, Islam is now back, unconstrained, as it was constrained, for his own self-interested purposes, by Saddam Hussein (who is not to be confused, in that constraining, with Ataturk). There are far fewer women unhijabbed or even, in the south, unburqaed. Christians have been murdered and the majority have left, and among those murdered have been priests and even bishops. That ballyhooed Iraqi Constitution contains the chilling phrase that nothing in it, and no subsequent legislation, may stand if it contradicts the principles of Islam, that is of the Shari’a. That puts not the document called the Iraqi Constitution, but rather the Shari’a, in the same supreme position, as the final authority, as in this country is our written Constitution.
What is “the better way”? Elections? You mean simple vote-counting, like that purple-thumbed affair, where all the Shi’a eagerly took part, and voted as a group, for the Shi’a, as a sign of the new transference of power, already accomplished and now merely being ratified, to the apparent great satisfaction of George Bush and his myopic administration, as an exercise in “true democracy.” It was nothing of the kind. It was an exercise in vote-counting and group politics, without any of the solicitousness for individual rights and autonomy (people did not vote as individuals, but as members of this or that group). And if the Shi’a participated happily, the Kurds voted to keep their oar in, but at the same time, 98% of those who took part in a Kurds-only referendum on independence, voted for such independence. This was and is still being ignored. As for the Sunnis, they voted with great reluctance, for they knew such a vote would only ratify the loss of power that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein made inevitable.
Again, tell me what that “better way”is, the one that you claim so many of those “27 million Arabs” are “coming to the realization” exists, and which, when chosen – as you think that vague “better way”is being chosen – will lead, so you tell us (and I suppose you think we will take it on faith), to becoming a “very strong and basic threat to Islam.”
Tell me, while you are at it, how you think the first-time-ever elections held by the “Palestinians” that gave Hamas such a victory managed to become “a very strong and basic threat to Islam”? Tell me how the situation in quasi-democratic Lebano, where the heretofore underrepresented and downtrodden Shi’a have managed to make their voices heard, and thereby, presumably, have discovered a “better way” that will inevitably constitue a “very strong and basic threat to Islam”?
And tell me too, what you think of the only Muslim regimes that managed, for a long or a short period, to constrain Islam, and allow some time and civil space for a secular class to develop? I have in mind Tunisia, under Habib Bourguiba and the one-party rule of the Destour Party, with his successor Ben Ali keeping in check through police-state methods those who favor putting Islam front and center, and I have in mind Ataturk, who was a despot, who first systematically constrained Islam and only then, allowed for some elements of democracy to emerge, and today, the Turkish democracy has had to be intermittently corrected by the keepers of Kemalism, the officer corps of the Turkish army.
And it was the Shah of Iran, an imperfect (because vain and not very intelligent and certinaly insufficiently ruthless man) Ataturk, who allowed non-Muslims in Iran to be treated decently, even to flourish, while it was Khomeini, the trogolodyte, who in “democratic elections” won in a walk.
When one looks at the Muslim lands, it is not “democracy” that offers a way to constrain Islam, but the enlightened despot – Bourguiba or the Shah or Ataturk.
But apparently those who keep supporting, because they can’t admit how wrong they have been, and for how long, and in how many ways, the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq, are determined not to look at the reality of Islam and what helps to constrain it, but to offer more burnt offerings to the Idol of the Age, something they call, not quite accurately I’m afraid, “democracy.”
at May 28, 2008 2:43 PM
The “democracy experiment”, a folly doomed to failure. Cannot work, cannot be salvaged – a fools errand attempted by fools, who know nothing of the real world.
Still, after a glass or two of fine California zinfandel, one wonders what Hugh would do.
What would he recommend if he KNEW that U.S. Forces would remain in Iraq? What would Hugh do if HE were charged with the mission of advancing the cause of the free world, able to command as he wished, everything EXCEPT the withdrawal of U.S. Troops?
How would he make the best use of the situation? What insightful courses of action would he propose?
One wonders.
at May 29, 2008 1:20 AM
How would he make the best use of the situation? What insightful courses of action would he propose?
One wonders."
Why don't you click on the Articles above and find out, by reading what I have written dozens or hundreds of times before. Why should I, if you have not bothered to read or remember this stuff, repeat it again and again. Ars longa....
None of the things I have suggested could and should be undertaken are dependent on an American withdrawal of forces from Iraq, though such a withdrawal would remove or lessen political and practical problems, and unstick us from the Tar Baby, or if you prefer another metaphor because that one makes some song-of-the-southishly nervous, unburden us of quite unnecessary freight, fraught with waste and the odor of defeat.
Posted by: Hugh at May 29, 2008 9:44 AM
‘Tis the Jihadis that smell the bitter odor of defeat - yet we toy with the idea of snatching it from them, to be our very own.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 30, 2008 3:57 AM
I want the “Turkish Officer Corp.” in charge of “political education” of the Iraqi Army.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 30, 2008 4:13 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.)