Why are marines in Fallujah? Why are there soldiers in Iraq at all at this point, now that the regime has been defanged? We are there, we are told, to bring "democracy" to Iraq, a place riven by tribalism, by sectarian and ethnic differences. It is possibly the last place in the world where a democratic nation-state can be put together -- or rather, it can be, over many decades, if we make it our American project, akin to a Science Project in high school, our weekend hobby into which we keep pouring men, money (huge sums, which of course the Iraqis will be happy to pocket), and our attention -- while the Jihad will continue all about us, everywhere else in the world. We have many other things to focus on, including winning back the self-corrupted "Euro-Arab Dialogue" countries of Western Europe (saving France from itself will take some doing -- vaste programme, monsieur!), or seizing the southern Sudan (it would not take much, and could help to fortify black Christian Africans from the onslaught of Arab Islam, as well as showing that we are quite capable of taking away from dar al-Islam the territory it had seized, and the blacks it thought it could so easily reduce to the worst dhimmitude). We can end foreign aid to all Muslim states, but especially to Egypt, that malevolent center of anti-Americanism (a few days after leaving Washington, Mubarak, then in Paris delivered himself of a violent attack on the United States--he apparently thinks he can get away with anything). Ditto the unpleasant little king Abdullah of Jordan, who runs a client state that unfortunately, gets to keep all the American money without having ever to behave like a client. Time to cut the pursestrings. Finally, if it is at all feasible, shoot down or otherwise put out of effective operation the ARABSAT which makes murderous propaganda from Al-Jazeera and suchlike possible. Deny Al Qaeda and company their major weapon -- propaganda. Will the Arabs shriek to high heaven? Of course they will. So what? Once it is clear that the war of self-defense is one a tous azimuths, that there is an end to American turning-the-other-cheek and sweetness-and-light (which, until now, has been the policy), and that the constraints, for example, on a wide range of policies (including a complete ban on Arab leaders being able to send their children to the West for education, or counting on Western medical care -- they cannot be allowed to cherry-pick what they take from the West, while they make our own lives much more unpleasant, difficult, expensive, and dangerous. And anyone who gives it a week's thought can no doubt come up with many ways to defeat the Jihad, or limit its impact, other than this quixotic project of making Iraq something it never has been, and is the most unlikely candidate for ever being.

The Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, born of insufficient attention to Islam (no, Bernard Lewis is not the last word on Islam; he is keenly aware of, and disinclined to offend, Muslim colleagues, friends, and patrons such as Prince Hassan; he has consistently misunderstood the significance of dhimmitude, and minimized its harshness; he has also sanitized the history of modern Iraq, and attempted to give the Hashemite Feisal a retroactive glow that is false, perhaps to help the candidacy of that same Prince Hassan (who, honey-tongued and false as he is, is a real menace in the correct understanding of Islam -- a "dialogue of civilisatons" man who will not tell the truth about Islam). Lewis, who was a great promoter of the Oslo Accords (and now angrily admits it, but will not discuss the reasons for his folly) has been taken as the fount of all wisdom. This is partly understandable. Those who have attacked him, such as the late Edward Said and the still-present John Esposito, are poor scholars, propagandists, apologists. One naturally wants to support those they attack -- and Lewis is their bete noire. Further, he is, in a sense, the only one left standing. Kedourie has died. J. B. Kelly and A. K. S. Lambton -- neither of whom share Lewis' need to be liked, or to simultaneously address both an Infidel and a Muslim audience (which fatally vitiates, at key moments, that which Lewis says). One still does not know to what degree the folly of the "democracy in Iraq" project is owed to Lewis, but those who were completely behind the smashing of Saddam, and especially of his military power, and then for a quick withdrawal to leave Iraq to whatever the people in it could make of it, have been vindicated. It is through chaos and confusion and collapse, and only thus, that within the Muslim world there will be a slow recognition that Islam itself is the problem, not the solution, that Islam itself is the political, economic, moral, and intellectual failure that, without Western foreign aid or OPEC money, it would be seen to be. And without de-islamization (that is, constraint on Islam, not an impossible-to-attain change in the texts of Qur'an or hadith) no "democracy" will ultimately be possible, for whatever such "democracy" is worth -- for it is not self-evident, and indeed contradicted by history, to believe that "democracy" in Muslim countries will render them any less hostile to the Infidels. If the quasi-democracy of Turkey is less hostile, that is because that democracy only came after thirty years of Kemalism under Ataturk and then Inonu; it was only in the early 1950s that something akin to democracy arrived; it remains forever shaky, for the vigilance of the secularists cannot let up for one minute. similarly

Hey Hugh! Wise up! If we weren't still in IZ without military might, there would be even more chaos with the Iranian-backed Shia kickin' it up with the millions of petro-Rials being pumped in from Tehran to support Sadr and his group of thugs!

Then you have the non-attributable Sunni terrorist threat in the triangle around Fallujah. I bet ol' Zaqawi is holed-up somewhere in the vicinty, too, eh?!

So, yes we are there for the oil...to protect and keep it from being used and abused by those who would...additionally, yeah, we have a vested interest in positioning. Wedged in between IR and Sy we could go in any...and I mean any...direction to find non-friends. Is that a euphamism for foe? Imagine that! So, yeah the long term goals are valid but we need more guns...eh, it's an American thing! You wouldn't understand.

As always, history is written by the conquerers...but past conquerers did not give access to the enemy into their own camp...yup, al Jazeira! They interpret it the way they want, as does any news service...all have a vested interests and alterior motives to persue - religious, economic or otherwise!

So, get off yer high-horse and see the merde for what it is...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!

Ciao! Chico!

Hey Hugh! Wise up! If we weren't still in IZ without military might, there would be even more chaos with the Iranian-backed Shia kickin' it up with the millions of petro-Rials being pumped in from Tehran to support Sadr and his group of thugs!

Then you have the non-attributable Sunni terrorist threat in the triangle around Fallujah. I bet ol' Zaqawi is holed-up somewhere in the vicinty, too, eh?!

So, yes we are there for the oil...to protect and keep it from being used and abused by those who would...additionally, yeah, we have a vested interest in positioning. Wedged in between IR and Sy we could go in any...and I mean any...direction to find non-friends. Is that a euphamism for foe? Imagine that! So, yeah the long term goals are valid but we need more guns...eh, it's an American thing! You wouldn't understand.

As always, history is written by the conquerers...but past conquerers did not give access to the enemy into their own camp...yup, al Jazeira! They interpret it the way they want, as does any news service...all have a vested interests and alterior motives to persue - religious, economic or otherwise!

So, get off yer high-horse and see the merde for what it is...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar!

Ciao! Chico!

Non-Dhimmi Marine:

1)I am an American citizen.
2) A very close relative is now in a most unpleasant part of Iraq, and I am following events there closely. America has not "failed"; the Iraqis have failed -- failed to exhibit any gratitude, any decency, or anything like civilized behavior. Some simply hate us; others just want to pocket everything we do for them, with their "wake-me-when-it's-over" attitude. They have not exactly earned our respect or affection. You can imagine my reaction whenever I see one of those frenzied or animated mobs dancing around a burnt American corpse or a burnt Humvee.
3) Divide and conquer is the oldest principle of war. You mention the Iranian Shi'a helping "Sadr and his thugs" -- I worry that in worrying about the essentially trivial Sadr, we are ignoring the need to bomb Iran's nuclear installations, which in turn, would help in the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Sadr is trivial.

4) in Iraq, Islam is the problem. "Democracy" or something like the Kemalist version, can come only once Islam has been thoroughly tamed. It cannot be done by Infidels. But, by leaving Iraq to its own devices -- and chaos and confusion there, and inter-ethnic strife, are not to be deplored or prevented by the United States, for properly handled, they will work to our advantage. It is crazy to expend men, materiel, money, and political capital keeping together three former Ottoman vilayets, in spending tens of billions on people who, save for the Chaldeans and, to a lesser extent, the Kurds, do not wish us well. Electricity grids, roads, schools, hospitals all rebuilt, courtesy of American taxpayers -- why should we? What good will that do in limiting the Jihad? How does that cut down on the madrasas and mosques that everywhere represent a threat to all Infidels?

5) You are a Marine, I take it from your email. There are plenty of things better than keep Iraq together (let it dissolve--as long as it is no military threat, let it become like Somalia today -- the only thing to worry about is HOW we leave it to its own mess, which is to say -- a departure MUST be accompanied by a series of actions to show that the Americans understand that the world-wide Jihad is the problem, including demographic conquest of Europe, the building of mosques and madrasas, the spreading subjugation of non-Muslims within Muslim-dominated countries, and so on.

5,000 Marines could seize southern Sudan, protect the non-Muslim black population that has suffered 20 years, and 2 million victims, of Arab Muslim genocide. The oil wealth is in the south. Split off into an independent country, the southern Sudan would be a place that would demonstrate American humanitarian intevention (the Arabs can't really claim that they have some kind of divine right to kill the black non-Muslims in the south, can they?) It would encourage the Christians of East and West Africa, against the steady encroachments of Islam. It would be economically self-sustaining, given the oil wealth. It could be a real base for the United States, one which could help it, for example, should it need to prevent Egypt from attacking Ethiopia over the latter's diversion of Nile waters; it would also be close enough to threaten Saudi Arabia, should that country become even more hostile and unpleasant, if such were possible, to non-Muslims than it is.

Think about that. And then ask your commanders to ask Washington to see if they can figure out a way to shoot the Arab satellite out of the sky, or otherwise put it out of commission.

I agree Hugh. We're throwing good money after bad in Iraq. Iran is our greatest threat--we cannot allow the Iranians to possess a nuclear weapon.

What's your thoughts on splitting Iraq into thirds? Would it work?

It worked for ancient Gaul.

When you write "work" I assume you mean work for American national interests. If a Kurdistan in the north were to be satisfied with taking territory from Syria and Iran, this would eat into countries we do not, and should not, wish well. Turkey, or rather "Kemalist" Turkey, does require some solicitude, but only so long as it remains secular and there is no Erdogan-wavering.

And if the Shi'a and Sunni get along, fine. If they don't, perhaps even better. Was the Iran-Iraq war a good thing, or a bad thing, from the viewpoint of Infidels? Surely it was a good thing, and to the extent that Iran were to help Iraqi Shi'a (not at all certain, given the low prestige of Islam in Iran now), and the Gulf Arabs or even the Alawi military dictatorship in Syria (in an attempt to prove that the Alawis are full-fledged Muslims) coming in to help the Sunnis -- is that, from the viewpoint of American national interests, desirable or undesirable?

Thanks Hugh. In my opinion, if it could be done quickly it would be desireable. Anything that allows us to train our attention on Iran right now is in American national interest. The consequences of Iran with nuclear weapons are about as bad as it gets. We've run out of time for the disgruntled Iranians to take down the mullahs and just the thought of diplomacy is laughable. I've said it before, this is scary stuff. All things considered (election year, ongoing fighting in Iraq, etc.), I don't believe the US is going to take any action. I hope Israel will.

Robert Spence wrote "America hopes restraint will win the battle of hearts and minds. I only hope that Sadr does not mistake our kindness for weakness. U.S. Marines were not meant for dhimmitude."

Sadly this seems to be the case, and Sadrists think this means God protected them, when the real protection was western humanism.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0501-01.htm

"Iraqis Declare Victory Over U.S. as Falluja Families Return"

"A mosque minaret in central Falluja hailed the "victory" of insurgents in the city over U.S. forces.

"God has given this town victory over the Americans," loud speakers from the mosque's minaret announced across the roof tops. "This victory came by the acts of the brave Mujahideen of Falluja who vanquished the American troops.""

Curious citizen from Sweden;

Yes, they are boasting in Fallujah about defeating the US. But let's give it two weeks and see what happens.
Either:
it is the biggest strategic mistake of the war; a surrender of military dominance due to political (mis)calculation.
Or:
It is a very smart strategy that will hoist the Fallujah terrorists and sympathizers upon their own petard. Boast now, pay later, dearly, in blood.

Lets wait and see. Frankly, I'm an independent voter who voted for Gore the last time around. I may actually vote for Bush this time (that would be a first time vote for a Republican presidential candidate), but only if he has the stomach to do what needs to be done to stop islamic fascism in its tracks. You guys in Europe will have to deal with this problem real soon if you don't want to permanently create an islamic reality in your countries.
Do you want Europe or Eurabia?
You only have about 10-20 years before it's too late.
What are you going to do about that?

Mike H

Hugh:

If memory serves, during the 1980s, in the midst of the Iran - Iraq war (in which Syria sided with Iran), the fascist dictator of Damascus, Hafez el-Asad, convinced the Ayatollahs of Qom to pronounce the Alawis to be a full sect of Shi'ism (like the Zubaidis, Ismailis, Yazidis, Ahmadis, etc).

As to the fate of Iraq, well, it's between the Devil and the deep, blue sea. The division into 3 looks like a good idea, but it'd depend vitally on how this comes about. The biggest problem for Turkey would be Kurdish irredentism. The biggest problem for the West would be that numerous spots in the predictable chaos and mayhem there would, before long, be liable to become centres for regional and international terrorism. How to forestall this eventuality? Half-hourly monitoring via air-patrols and from orbit?

Radical pacification ought to be ventured first: an example should be made of Faluja as soon as it inevitably brews up again, together with Najaf, if Imam Sadr doesn't come out with his hands up straight away and his "Army" doesn't hand over all its weapons immediately. Then Ramadi, Kufa, even Bagdad itself - till the lesson's properly imparted (in Iraq and well beyond).

To create this example, no US Marines should be ordered to storm Faluja; instead, a final 2 or 3 hour warning should be given, then a mini-nuke launched to obliterate the town.

The message would be unmistakable: there'll be ample death - but never victory - for the Islamo-fascists. If that's what they desire, they'll be accommodated without qualms and in spades - the US now has the suitable atomic armoury plus the nerve to use it, without any fears of further arousing the murderous passions of the Arab and Moslem sphere. (Anyway, how much more of a lather of hatred can they work themselves into than they're already in today, eh?)

Iran's reactionaries have re-asserted their political control of late and have promptly accelerated their clandestine nuclear armaments program. The IAEA's let itself be blind-sided and led down the garden path; if the US won't quash Iran's menacing projects in time, Israel will be compelled to do so, in spite of the hysterical, hypocritical obluquy this'll earn from the "international community".