| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Obama, if elected, may be reluctant to do what McCain, if he could be made to see the Jihad in its worldwide context (especially the problems of Da'wa, demographic conquest, and the Money Weapon deployed in the countries of Western Europe) might more easily and swiftly do. After all, McCain doesn't have to prove, so it is believed, his "toughness" in national security. Obama now talks in terms of "16 months" and of "sitting down with commanders in Iraq" -- who are the commanders, at this point, because they are the ones left who still believe, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, in the quasi-stated "mission." Under Obama troops might be there for his entire first term.
It would be useful and heartening to see McCain start to make the noises that will be interpreted, correctly, as his becoming aware of the great unhappiness of officers and men, aware of how the Iraq goal is the wrong goal, and aware of how to attain it we will be there forever -- because, in Islam, there is no desire for or understanding of the need for compromise. It's all a matter of Victor and Vanquished. That's how the Sunni Arabs feel, and that's how the Shi'a Arabs feel. They'll take the American money, and take whatever arms they can get their hands on or further inveigle out of the Americans (oh, please do leave us these tanks and these fighting vehicles and these helicopters, and a few dozen airplanes, if you don't mind -- they will make us much more able to control an "unstable" situation, and you don't want "instability" after you Americans leave, do you?), but they will not take anything that will lead them away from Islam and Sharia rule.
And if Obama were not to simultaneously show that such a withdrawal from Iraq is not a sign of weakness, or still worse, a sign of a desire to appease the Muslims of the world, that would be bad.
But if he or McCain were to carry out that withdrawal swiftly, not leaving behind weaponry, it doesn’t necessarily have to look like a sign of American weakness. Weaponry could be left possibly with the Kurds, if a deal can be struck with them, for they will have to rely only on the United States. Leaving no weaponry behind for anyone else will show that we do not see the Sunni or Shi’a Arabs in Iraq as potential allies. It will signal an end to the time when we allowed ourselves to believe that they were something other than, let's face it, what they always were in the mass. You don't make policies for Iraq on the basis of a Makiya, a Rend al-Rahim, a Chalabi, but on the basis of what the mass of primitives in that country believe.
If Obama, or McCain, precedes or accompanies or follows that withdrawal quite quickly with a series of acts designed to make clear that the withdrawal is part of a new, much more intelligent, no-nonsense, unsentimental, even ruthless attempt to defend ourselves by exploiting pre-existing fissures and other weaknesses in the Camp of Islam and Jihad, it will not be seen as weakness. It will not be seen as weakness also if we turn our attention to the most important problems, such as the attempt by Iran to gain nuclear weapons (that problem may have to be dealt with even before the new President assumes office), and to the Jihad in the historic heart of the West, Europe, where we need to counter or check all the most effective instruments of Jihad (the Money Weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest). It will not be seen as weakness if the new President speaks about all this, and acts, and ceases prating monomaniacally and misleadingly only about "terrorism."
And certain bold actions may also be taken. I have repeatedly suggested that, for a very small investment of men and money, great defeats can be inflicted on the expansionist aims of Islam in Africa. A few thousand American troops, with the Sudanese airforce preemptively destroyed, could seize the southern Sudan and Darfur, and hold those territories. There would be pictures worldwide of grateful black Africans tearfully welcoming their American soldier-saviors, many of the latter themselves black, who will as they occupy those territories learn a lot about the behavior of Arabs. Learning such things will stand them and our country in good stead when they return to civilian life. The occupation could continue until a referendum on independence from the north can be held. And while the seizure would damage the cause and image of Islam, and raise the morale of imperiled Christians in black Africa, not least in southern Nigeria, it would also be so obviously a humanitarian rescue that no one save Muslim Arabs could object -- not even Nicholas Kristof, not even Samantha Powers. The Muslim Arabs, meanwhile, will be enraged and yet unable to adequately express their rage, knowing how it will be taken.
And there are a dozen other such measures that might be taken to make sure that no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq is a sign of weakness. It would, or could be, a sign of mental clarity, and indeed, of a highly desirable end to messianic sentimentalism, and an embrace of uncompromising, and indeed ruthless, realism.
Posted by Hugh at July 7, 2008 9:49 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
In this, Obama is the better choice, but not overall. There are a million other reasons not to vote for Obama. Unfortunately, McCain will stay and bask in the glories of short-term gains in Iraq only to see the inevitable result after squandering so much more manpower and money.
Both Obama and McCain have failed to grasp the true nature of Islam and its goal of global domination through both violent and non-violent means and measures.
Dumb and Dumber springs to mind.
Posted by: awake![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 7, 2008 10:14 AM
Weaponry could be left possibly with the Kurds, if a deal can be struck with them, for they will have to rely only on the United States.
How can that be accomplished without Kurdistan declaring its independence and separating itself entirely from the rest of Iraq? Without US forces there to protect them, they would be overrun in short order. We can't trust the Turks to recognize those boundaries.
Is the idea to move our troops to Africa?
The same applies in Darfur and the southern Sudan. They are being torn apart by the Arab north. Without American forces there, they will be overrun once again. They would have to declare independence and separate themselves entirely from their Muslim countrymen. The isolation of the Muslim community is not a bad thing but can it happen or will we be trading one bad apple for another?
Just as our invasion of Iraq gave Iran additional impetus for its WMD (which was already in full development even before 9/11), so an invasion of an African country will give the surrounding states reason to fear for their own regimes. Qadhaffi may have made nice with the West and given up WMD, but is Libya prepared to accept a US force near its own border?
Sudan borders the Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya and Uganda. How many of these countries would welcome our presence?
Iraqis were also grateful. That didn't last long.
Posted by: PMK at July 7, 2008 10:33 AM
South Sudan maybe, but please not Darfur! What makes you think that Mohammedans - be they Arab or Black - will thank Infidels? They probably have the same mental makeup as the rest of the ummah that states that the Infidels owe them, and whenever they are done any favors, they respond as thought it's as expected as breathing.
Sorry, but the same people who want the US to withdraw from Iraq (for the wrong reasons) also want the US to intervene in Darfur (for other wrong reasons) [Incidentally, where does Obama stand on Darfur?]
After all, McCain doesn't have to prove, so it is believed, his "toughness" in national security.Yep, being the one GOP candidate who opposes Gitmo, and wants Jihadis to be brought to the US for their trials, is exactly what demonstrates his 'national security' bonafides.
Might one ask - which nations!!????
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 7, 2008 11:34 AM
Hugh,
Honestly, I'm a bit confused by this. If both Sunni and Shia get no weapons from Americans, don't you think whichever Jihadi group Iran likes would fill the vacuum? How does handing the country to the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran help reduce the growth of Shari' law? (Certain individuals should have thought of that before voting for the invasion, but that's a different story.)
I also don't understand your argument for invading Africa:
"There would be pictures worldwide of grateful black Africans tearfully welcoming their American soldier-saviors". That sounds quite a bit like the "slam dunk" in which Iraqis "welcome us with flowers and roses." I have news for you. Black rebels in Darfur would be none too pleased with a foreign invasion. I suspect Black Sudanese would quickly sour also. Colonialism is over for a reason, and while I hardly think this should preclude all interventions, "soldier saviors" is just a bit much, no?
at July 7, 2008 11:37 AM
Iraq could have been over in 2004. Vietnam could have been over in 1967 with three-four weeks of intense infrastructure bombing of the North (read Admiral Stockdale on this.) Time is the most precious thing in a human being's life, once gone and wasted it is GONE. No less true of nations.
Posted by: poetcomic1
at July 7, 2008 11:54 AM
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 7, 2008 11:37 AM
While Iran will certainly attempt to fill the vacuum, the Sunni Saudis will also have something to say about it. The endless strife, to which Hugh alludes to often, as an end result.
As far as reducing the growth of Shari'ah law. You are aware that the Iraqi Constitution is based on Shari'ah, right?
As far as Africa goes, I am not particularly in support of intervening there, but the difference there to the "slam-dunk" in Iraq as you put it, is that we would be trying to save and liberate non-Muslims as opposed to Iraqi Muslims.
Black, white, brown green, man, woman...all irrelevant. The only deciding variable that is applicable is whether or not one subscribes and adheres to Islam.
Posted by: awake at July 7, 2008 11:58 AM
we would be trying to save and liberate non-Muslims as opposed to Iraqi Muslims.Awake
South Sudan yep, but that won't be the case in Darfur, where you have Black Mohammedans!!!
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 7, 2008 12:01 PM
IP,
Agreed, and I also stated that I am not in support of even that. Let the UN stew in their own feces some more until civilized countries decide to abolish that corrupt cesspool.
Sad, I know, but we are currently wasting too much time, effort, money and blood trying to help Mohammedans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: awake at July 7, 2008 12:14 PM
Usually I agree with you Infidel Pride, but on Darfur I believe you are wrong. Going there can only be a good thing. If Darfur, a territory larger than California, can be taken over and granted independence it will be a huge defeat for the arabs. It will make the arabs mistrust non- arab muslims, and disrupt arab plans for islamizing eastern africa as they have islamized almost all of western africa, since the French and British left. And the looney multi-culturalists would support a war on behalf of enslaved muslims.
Also I don't believe that the Darfurians will turn against the US as they would be dependant on US protection against the arabs for decades. The majority of Sudan's neighbors with the exception of the arab supremacists in Egypt and Libya would also welcome a us intervention.
Notice Southern Sudan has already been promised an independence referendum in 2011
Posted by: European Crusader at July 7, 2008 2:04 PM
Posted by: European Crusader at July 7, 2008 2:04 PM
Are there any non-Muslims left alive in Darfur at this point?
Posted by: awake at July 7, 2008 2:06 PM
Darfur, a territory larger than California,Euro-Crusader
I guess we're both just speculating on what the people of Darfur might do should we intervene on their behalf, but I still tend more towards Awake's non intervention policy there. Arabs may mistrust non-Arabs, but don't believe that Darfur wont be a new member of the OIC, with all that that implies.
As for the comparisons with California - we heard that so many times about Iraq and now with Darfur - let's not just equate areas, which is meaningless. Iraq is rich in oil, and thanks to the Tigris and the Euphrates, it's not a completely barren desert, as, say, Saudi Arabia. But even then, I wouldn't compare it to California. Comparing CA to Darfur is even more ridiculous - that's the bulge area of West Sudan that just has Chad on the West, and is has even less strategic value than Afghanistan.
I have nothing against the people of Darfur being liberated, provided there is any tangible and empirical evidence that they would de-Islamize. Somehow, despite the ill treatment from Arabs and the claims by the Khartoum regime that they are un-Islamic, I don't see anything to back that up.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 7, 2008 3:17 PM
Hugh l dont think the kurds can be trusted, their only worth is that they hate the arabs worse than us, but in the end they are still muslims who still believe in killing non muslims, honour killings etc.
And if you think an Obama would send in troops to Dafur after getting out of iraq, l dont see this happening, but worse l see Obama a true leftwing elite who will deplete the military, and weaken the country worse than Clinton did during his two terms.
at July 7, 2008 3:31 PM
I came across this clear-headed and worthy piece by John David Lewis again, entitled "No Substitute for Victory”, subtitled The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.
It is a clear and concise plan for the *defeat* of this totalitarian and merciless enemy, something the West has not yet begun to attempt. If you haven't read it yet, it is well worth your time.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp
Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at July 7, 2008 3:33 PM
"Also I don't believe that the Darfurians will turn against the US as they would be dependant on US protection against the arabs for decades. The majority of Sudan's neighbors with the exception of the arab supremacists in Egypt and Libya would also welcome a us intervention."
European Crusader,
I would suggest Europe do the crusading this time. The Darfurians will be dependent on the US but why should we pay for it, with our lives and fortunes? We didn't create that country. We didn't draw its borders. NO! Let Europe do some of the heavy lifting. No one is stopping them.
You also have the Sudanese Arabs. They will come after the US as long as we are there. Are the Darfurians willing to fight them? Which is stronger - their desire for freedom or their belief in Islamic superiority? We thought we might have allies in Iraq - that we and the Shia had a common enemy in Saddam and the Sunnis. It didn't work out that way. How many more stories will we have to read about an "American occupation"? No way!
As long as ANY of Sudan's neighbors will resist this then there is no reason to do it.
The Iraqis were grateful, too. The scene in Baghdad when Saddam's statue was knocked down was memorable. The feeling didn't last long.
Arab or non-Arab, they're Muslims. Asian Muslims aren't Arab but they do a pretty good job at jihad.
So what about the African Muslims? Do they or do they not believe in a global caliphate? Do they or do they not believe that Islam must be superior to all other religions and that those religions must be wiped out? There's no middle ground. Either they believe these things or they don't.
There is no such thing as a Muslim-in-name-only. Either he believes in jihad or he doesn't. If he doesn't then he had better join the Western forces wherever they are. Actions speak louder than words. If he is not with us then he is against us. In this fight, there is no room for neutrality.
All of those countries that would "welcome a US intervention"? Let them join together and do the intervening themselves. They know the terrain better than we do. It's their backyard, not ours. Let's have no more stories about the imperial United States. Wherever people want us to back out we should - with both feet. Where we are asked to "intervene" we keep our feet firmly planted - in America.
at July 7, 2008 4:20 PM
Infidel Pride:
I'm of course not comparing Darfur to California in riches, only in size to point out that when there is an opportunity to reduce the "arab world" with territory that size, it should be exploited. And even though an independent Darfur would be a member of oic, it wouldn't be a member of the arab league, so it would be a huge humiliation in the eyes of the arabs. And just like an independant Baluchistan would remain muslim, wouldn't you support it breaking free just to weaken pakistan?
PMK:
You are right, the EU should clean up in Sudan, this yet another mess after the british empire, that benefited the muslims and weakened the infidels. Though I wouldn't compare the darfurians to the shia in iraq, who are the strongest group in iraq and have their iranian allies nearby. They are more comparable to the iraqi Kurds, who are probably the most trustworthy US muslim "allies" in the middle east. Not because they love america, but because they fear the arabs.
Also I think that casualties in darfur would be minimal as it's mostly desert without any large population centers where western troops can be more easily ambushed and where they have to consider civilian casualties when they fight. Just as the american casualties where minimal (compared to this war) when the US fought saddam in 1991, when they stayed out of the iraqi towns and fought mainly in the desert
at July 7, 2008 8:28 PM
R bin R,
Most excellent essay (“No Substitute for Victory”) thank you.
I have copied it and will pass it on to those few of my friends who have the patience for serious study and reflection.
at July 8, 2008 3:53 AM
European Crusader,
The Shia vs the Darfurians is valid for one huge reason: both hate(d) the ruling class. We were told even in 1990 that the Iraqi Shia are Arabs, that they will never side with Iran in a fight, even though both are Shia.
We saw how wrong that was once Saddam was gone.
The Kurds became our ally only after fourteen years of overflights and protection. It didn't stop Ansar-al-Islam from operating in the Kurdish area. There are obviously some Kurds who think terrorism's okay or they would have done away with that group the moment it raised its head.
I am not prepared to spend ten or fifteen years protecting Darfur. It's a job for the people of that area. The moment we are in there it will be: Islam is in danger!!! Kill the infidels!!! The imperial US is out to destroy Islam.
Enough, already! They chose Islam. Let them live with it. If the Darfurians are prepared to openly renounce Islam, that will be a different matter.
My question is: they may hate the Arabs but how do they feel about the Christians in the southern area? Imagine the two areas combined in a new country broken off from the north. Would the Darfurians live in peace with their Christian neighbors? It's hard to believe that the innate superiority of Islam (in their minds anyway) won't get the better of them.
at July 8, 2008 7:51 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.)