As to the original intervention, one can still maintain that that was rational and was worth it.

If by "the original intervention in Iraq" you mean the invasion and occupation of Iraq as opposed to the war over Kuwait years earlier, I have to strongly disagree.

It is obvious now that we entered the war under false pretenses and without proper preparation and planning. Hardly rational, it was a tragic, horrible, strategic error that has been a set-back to “the war on terror."

Why can’t we be honest and just say that here? We need to get over it and get out of there and concentrate on our nation's real problems, not the ones we have invented for ourselves in Iraq.

Little or nothing of worth has come from the invasion of Iraq. I certainly have not seen anything worth the live and limbs of the American people spent so far.

f.g.

Posted by: f.g. at August 29, 2005 3:39 PM

I continue to marvel at the logic that says walking away from Iraq and leaving it to the most fanatical elements will somehow enhance the security of the USA.

Afghanistan taught you nothing.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 29, 2005 4:07 PM

Is a transcript (even in French is fine) of the Sarkozy "shredding" of Ramadan available anywhere?
I would love to read it along with a dinner of some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at August 29, 2005 4:49 PM

"leaving it [Iraq] to the most fanatical elements will somehow enhance the security of the USA."
--- from a posting above

Why should American troops sacrifice themselves to suppress a Sunni (not "Sunni-led" insurgency) for the sake of the equally unattractive, and some would argue (the poster above, for example, in previous postings has raised the scary prospect of a certain Shi'a victory and a Shi'a superstate which would efface that Treaty-of-Erzrum (1847) border between Iran and Iraq) even more disturbing Shi'a?

Why should American officers be attempting to do the impossible -- to train an "Iraqi force" that will be able to go after, with equal ease, Sunni and Shi'a, or Arab and Kurd, when everyone knows that save for a nearly-invisible handful (all the people the Americans mean, from Chalabi and Ambassador Francke, to Kanan Makiya, to those Christian ex-servants of Saddam Hussein now waiting on the Americans in the Green Zone, as their cooks, tasters, laundrymen, etc.) few in Iraq think of themselves as Iraqis first, or even second, and their loyalty is to family, tribe, and possibly to ethnic or sectarian group, but never to the nation-state. It is cruel to impose this Mission Impossible on various generals -- David Petraeus and his successors -- and cruel to make them shut up about this problem that was not understood, and cannot be cured, and will continue to bedevil all expense and endless attempts to build an "Iraqi" force.

The objection that America would be putting down the Infidel Man's Burden and "Leaving Iraq to the most fanatical elements" is, to my mind, no objection at all, but rather an endorsement of what I keep urging. Let those fanatical elements attack each other. Let the Sadr Brigade attack the Badr Brigade, or let some of the Sadr Brigade eventually join forces with the Badr Brigade, so that the Badrs and the Sadrs can together fight the Ba'athist (secular) Sunnis who want to keep the Sh'a down, and the Zarqawi Wahhabi-Salafi-watchmacallitbibbetybobbityboo Sunnis who want to kill the Shi'a because they are Infidels -- yes, let those fanatics go at it.

And what's more, let the Islamic Republic of Iran send its last "good men" and True Believers into the fray, if they choose, and certainly let the fanatics ruling in Tehran spend their energy, devote their attention, to the Sunni counterattacks (aided and abetted by Iran's enemy, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunnis from everywhere).

Yes, let those Muslim fanatics (Sunni brand) fight those Muslim fanatics (Shi'a brand), and meanwhile, funnel from afar weaponry to the Kurds, and even encourage them to covet Kurdish lands in Syria and Iran, but in return they must, knowing that we are their only hope, give up the desire to take the territories now part of Turkey where Kurds live, and they must also promise -- and we mean this -- to shelter, and not to massacre, any and all Iraqi Christians who wish to find refuge in the Kurdish autonomous region, which if all goes well will become a state.

What a prospect. What a way to calm Infidels down, so that they can enjoy the spectacle. And in Washington, they can then stop spouting nonsense, stop demoralizing the troops who are forced (the intelligent and aware ones) to risk their lives in defense of nonsense, simply becuause the Administration lacks people informed enough to see that the problem is the Jihad, is Islam itself, and this cobbled-together "Democracy-Is-the=Solution" idea is sentimental, without a basis either in Islam, or in the particular history and makeup of Iraq.

We are not leaving Iraq to "the fanatics." We are leaving the fanatics in Iraq -- to deal with each other. And this will buy us time, time to handle the Iranian science project, time to appeal to the best in Western Europe (that is, not those who have been part of the Eurabian project, but those who have begun to see the light, the pro-American, even possibly glimmers-of-sympathy-for-Israel light. They must be encouraged, and the way to start encouraging them is to show that American policymakers are not obstinate, can climb that learning curve, and have in Iraq learned a lot, a great deal, about the limits of trusting to Muslims, of whatever sort, to do the right thing, the advanced Western thing, the obvious sensible thing. It isn't going to happen. So let's leave them to their own devices, while of course reserving the right to send weapons to the Kurds, to interdict from the air, to intervene and fight from afar -- telemachically -- so that the regular army, the citizen-army, the equipment, can all be restored to health, and so too can the minds being bent by the display of tortuous rhetoric and mental confusion in Washington. It is too painful, all way round.

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2005 5:17 PM

I agree with the President that leaving Iraq would just embolden the enemy and cost more lives. France has been working covertly with American intelligence since Sept 12, 2001.

Posted by: Roxane at August 29, 2005 5:27 PM

"Is a transcript (even in French is fine) of the Sarkozy "shredding" of Ramadan available anywhere?"
-- from a posting above

Probably. And so too must Alain Finkielkraut's demolishment. Don't expect Scott Appleby or Avi Shlaim taking time from their busy schedules to view those debates, much less spend valuable grant-application time bothering to read "Frere Tariq" by Catherine Fourest. And if an English edition of that book has not yet appeared, and is not in the works, would some intelligent publisher please get at once on the translation ball. Go to Arthur Goldhammer. Go to Richard Howard. Go to M. Seamus Dupont or Mr. Jean-Jacques Smith, but as Cromwell said about another matter, for God's sake go!

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2005 5:27 PM

I suspect that the French, love them or leave them, were suspicious all along that democracy could be brought to the Arab/Muslim lands. They, after all, have much experience with this part of the globe.

President Bush, for all his bombastic and jubilant talk, was whistling into the wind! It is impossible to bring democracy to Muslims. And for a very simple reason: Islam and democracy are quite, quite incompatible. In democracy, all power rests with the people and filters up from them; in Islam, all powers rests with Allah, and filters down from Him! Therein lies the difficulty of trying to reconcile two irreconcileable goals!

It would help us greatly here in the West if, instead of trying to achieve the unachieveable, we were to spend our time and our energies trying to safeguard our democracy/democracies at home. For really we are losing much that is democratic by inviting/allowing Muslims to live amongst us.

Far better would it be to ensure that democracy reigns supreme here in the West, and to let THEM do what they want in their own lands. Oil and water DO NOT mix!

Posted by: Mark at August 29, 2005 5:45 PM

Probably also worth mentioning the French ban on the hijab. There is evidence (through Islamic forums, local newspaper sites) that some French Muslims have upped sticks and moved to the UK.

Interestingly, more recent asylum applications by Algerians are made in neighbouring countries. It seems they no longer like the 'climate' in the former colonial power. France's loss, Finsbury's Park's gain :-(

Posted by: Effractor at August 29, 2005 5:47 PM

I fully supported this Iraq war -- and not for the pretext of WMD, but rather in the naive expectation that our military success would translate into an unabmiguous message to the despots and crackpots in the Middle East -- 'we can do this to you too!' I DO think that the message has been received, and they all know we can dismantle whatever they create in short shrift -- and that will give them some pause --

But I am altogether staggered at the craven failure of Bush to confront Islamism ruthlessly and directly in the aftermath of the war. I am certain that had we pronounced in brutal terms that Islam was broken, that governments crafted under its sway would not EVER succeed, and that the US would NEVER tolerate the creation of 'Islamic Republics' -- we could have prevailed in pushing back the bigots and placing the Islamic fascists on the defensive for 50 years. Instead we have continued to hear the soft shoe shuffle from Bush about 'the religion of peace' and worse yet -- TACIT support of an Islamist solution to the problem of Iraq -- Clearly such a 'solution' is completely bogus and doomed to fail -- ALL the blood -- ALL the treasure may be for NOTHING -- And the US Administration failed to place a bright marker in the sand stating 'NO ISLAMISM!" This has been a shattering failure of US policy -- and I am now forced to reconsider my position on the war -- I still believe the lessons of how mighty our military is in dismantling the regimes in the Middle East is a salutary one, and possibly worth the sacrifices we have endured -- But as for all the rest -- making Iraq safe for theocracy and all the rest ---

FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE

And an epic scale missed opportunity...

Posted by: jsla at August 29, 2005 6:03 PM

We made our point when we took down Saddam Hussein. It was a moral and useful thing to do. He was a monster and, WMD or no, a threat to the United States's interests in the Middle East.

Two-plus years and thousands of casualties later, there is no point in hanging around to act as matchmaker to factions who want to rip each others' lungs out and who, like most Muslims, have a religious faith in jihad that matches ours in democracy. Not since Plato was invited to Sicily to set up a Utopia has there been any mission as surely destined to fail as our fatuous belief that we can turn Iraq into a New England town meeting.

What we need to do is back off but throw down the gauntlet by announcing that from now on, any Islamic nutcase dictator or government who poses a clear threat to the United States or our allies (e.g., Israel) can expect to be deposed or killed, whichever comes first. We won't wait around to sort out who takes over; just let it be known that if the next regime develops bad habits, it will be demolished in turn.

Posted by: Rick Darby at August 29, 2005 6:04 PM

Iraq: Saddam seems to be "safe", for now...

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/252167

Posted by: Terminator at August 29, 2005 6:29 PM

Hugh,

Brilliant piece as usual. I noticed that our friend Victor Davis Hanson, in his column this week, studiously ignored our serious criticism of the war and his work and focused instead on a series of loony straw men to disparage. Just like Rich Lowry dismissed my criticism of his work, so VDH is dismissing yours, mine and ours (that is Robert Spencer's).
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508260909.asp

I suppose they think if they ignore us, we'll go away. Fat chance.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at August 29, 2005 6:52 PM

Hugh's basic premises conveyed above are:

1) Iraq has no national consciousness and never will. Any attempt to forge one is "mission impossible."

Might I remind everyone that almost all the countries of the third world are - at least geographically - artificial constructs based upon Western colonial boundaries. Tribal, ethnic and linguistic rivalries are certainly not unique to Iraq. Yet, a national consciousness can and often has developed among these countries.

When the Iraqi military overthrew the Hashemite King in 1958, millions of Iraqis - Sunni, Shiite and Kurd alike - took to the streets to support a new government they knew hardly nothing about simply because it was a repudiation of the British-imposed monarch. In the tumultuous days after the coup, Iraq was in a frenzy of nationalist euphoria.

During the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s, when Iraq was threatened by Iran's counter-offensive, Iraqi Shiites didn't defect or rebel and join the cause of their fellow Shiites from Iran...at least not in significant numbers. Part of this was of course based upon fear of the regime. But part was also based upon national loyalty and patriotism; Shiites fought bravely and tenaciously alongside their Sunni fellow-countrymen to stave off the Iranian advance.

But Hugh writes that any attempt to maintain Iraqi unity is "mission impossible." I disagree.

2) A showdown in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite fanatics will give the West a reprieve.

I submit that the reprieve will be short, that whichever side wins (and I'm convinced it be the Shiites, based upon their numerical superiority and Iranian support), violent fanatics will emerge in control of Iraq, that they will use Islam and YES - Iraqi nationalism - to suppress Kurdish autonomy...and that ultimately Iraq become an unfettered militant base of operations for global jihad.

In Hugh's universe, though America is apparently helpless in determining Iraq's future with 150,000 boots on the ground, we will somehow be in a viable position to stave off future existential threats to Iraqi Kurdistan with air power only.

Hugh wants us to walk away, watch Iraq go up in flames and presume something good will come of it. Don't buy into it folks. We walked away from Afghanistan in 1992 and it brought us the Taliban and 9-11.

We won't be in Iraq forver. But there's a right way to leave and a wrong way. Our job is not yet done.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 29, 2005 7:27 PM

Cornelius, what difference is it going to make to the jihadis if we walk away tomorrow (they declare victory) or if we walk away 10 years from now and they declare victory then?

The opposite side of the benefit ratio you cite is cost. We simply cannot make the victory we seek too costly or we will lose. This is basic. We should never allow ourselves to be in the position to contemplate failure. Therefore, we have to have realistically attainable goals.

We have a starry eyed, naive Secretary of State sending our precious fighting forces on a fools errand. This cannot be allowed to stand. Our military is too important and we cannot allow it to be demoralized and degraded by prolonged, pointless combat where nothing is gained and much is lost.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at August 29, 2005 7:54 PM

Hugh:

"The E.U. bureaucracy is as hopelessly philo-islamic, anti-American, and anti-Israel as the U.N., and should simply be ignored."

Typical response from a deluded Anti-Muslim Zionist.

Read this, have a nice dose of reality.

"What is emerging is a new bi-polar world, with the United States and Israel on one side, and the rest of the world on the other. This new alignment of forces, this shift in power relationships in the world, is strikingly reflected in the United Nations, where, time and time again, votes on issues in both the General As*sembly and the Security Council pit the United States and Israel on one side, and virtually the entire rest of the world on the other.

On October 21, 2003, for example, there was a vote in the UN General Assembly on a resolution condemning Israel’s so-called “security barrier,” a grotesque thing, parts of it larger and more formidable than the Berlin Wall, that Israel has built on occupied Palestinian territory. Supporting the resolution were 144 countries, representing nearly the entire world’s population. Twelve countries abstained. Just four countries opposed the resolution. They were: Israel, the United States, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia. The latter two member states, small island countries in the Pacific ocean with a combined population of 180,000, are utterly dependent on the US. And on December 9, 2003, the members of the UN General Assem*bly considered a resolution re-affirming the principle of Pal*estinian sovereignty. It received the backing of 142 states, including all the nations of Europe and South America. In this case as well, just four countries voted against the resolution: Israel, the US, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

This reminds me of a story. A senior citizen whose brain didn’t work as well or as quickly as it once did, was driving on the freeway when his cell phone rang. He answered it, and heard his wife urgently warning him, “Charles, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on the freeway. Please be careful!" Charles immediately replied: “Honey, it's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

Well, like Charles, President Bush and Israeli premier Aerial Sharon insist that everyone else is recklessly going the wrong way. And as the United States and Israel increasingly regard the rest of the world as "out of step," most of humanity views the US and Israel with mounting distrust, hostility and fear."

Posted by: ia786 at August 29, 2005 8:08 PM

A poster above has such a penchant for misquoting me, or stating my position in a misleading fashion or as a caricature that anyone would find fault with ("Hugh wants us to walk away"...." "In Hugh's universe America is apparently helpless in determining Iraq's future...") that I am required, I suppose, to go back, find his other remarks, at previous threads, and laboriously answer them a second time.

But for now let me content myself with the following:

First he says that the argument that Iraq is an unlikely nation-state should not matter because so many new countries are full of ethnic, tribal, and other rivalries. Oh, good -- so it is okay then that we are trying to fashion a nation-state out of three distinct, and mutually hostile groups (with a little non-hostility at the educated and upper-class edges of the respective populations), even if it is hellishly difficult and possibly impossible, because you see lots of countries are like that. Yes, indeed -- the Sudan is like that. Would you have us go in to the Sudan to keep it together, or to help separate out the non-Muslim victims, and the non-Arab Muslim victims, from the Muslim Arab persecutors and murderers? What about Nigeria? If the Biafran Nation arises yet again, and there is another attempt, like that between 19676-1969, to create a free, nation that would allow the Ibo and smaller Christian tribes in the south to leave the oppressive domination of the Muslim, largely Hausa north -- should we step in to keep it together? Or should we rather do what we might have done during the Biafran War, which is to help those Ibo and Christians (Nigerian oil is entirely in the south).

But in any case, while various new nations are not exactly nation-states akin to those of North America or Europe, Iraq presents unusual problems -- the kind of problems that Yugoslavia presented. For the three separate groups, one defined ethnically (the Kurds, who are, by the way, mostly Sunni, but their main oppressor, and the main "arabizer" of their lands, have the Sunni Arabs), and two defined by the brand of Islam they follow. And these are not simply "three groups" but three groups with a long history of mutual mistrust and resentment.

It might interest the poster above to know that Gertrude Bell, in her letters in the earliest days of modern Iraq, makes repeated reference to the Shi'a fury at being ruled by a Sunni elite in Baghdad (the various relevant excerpts from Gertrude Bell which I unearthed, I gave to Dr. Andrew Bostom to make use of and his article can be found on the Internet). And Elie Kedourie, the most detailed and most scrupulous of all writers on the birth of modern Iraq, reminds us that the Kurds in the vilayet of Mosul had to be persuaded to accept becoming part of Iraq -- they would have preferred to remain under Turkish rule.

The poster offers us this piece of geopolitical pollyanna:

"Might I remind everyone that almost all the countries of the third world are - at least geographically - artificial constructs based upon Western colonial boundaries. Tribal, ethnic and linguistic rivalries are certainly not unique to Iraq. Yet, a national consciousness can and often has developed among these countries."

The "at least geographically" sentence in fact shows how little the poster knows about Iraqi borders -- about as much as Jack Straw, ripped apart by J. B. Kelly in The Telegraph a year or two ago, for precisely the same mistake. The longest, and the most important border for Iraq is that which was defined by the Treaty of Erzrum in 1847, between the Ottoman Empire and the Perisan Empire, a treaty brokered, incidentally, by Russia. "Western colonial boundaries" had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, the "boundaries" to the north and west are the boundaries of the old Ottoman vilayets -- again, not "Western colonial" but rather boundaries set by Muslims under Turkish rule. The only important change was in the south, where Sir Percy Cox was busy drawing a line in the sand, and giving birth to modern Kuwait.

As for the second sentence, to write with a straight face the following "tribal, ethnic, and linguistic rivalries are certainly not unique to Iraq" must have been difficult. Yes we know that all sorts of countries are not based on the European nation-state. But what kind of rivalries -- peaceful or murderous? In the case of modern Iraq, it does not do to describe the Anfal campaign of mass-murder conducted by Arabs, and only Arabs, against the Kurds, as a question of "rivalries." There were no rivalries -- there was just mass murder. It does not do to describe the mass murder of Shi'a in the south as a matter of "rivalries" either. The problems in Iraq are not like the French and Flemish speakers in Belgium, not akin to the Parti Quebecois in Quebec pushing for independnece. What you call "rivalries" in Iraq is a lot more deadly than that.

And in any case, one wonders what the point is? I not only say that those fissures are deep and real, and have been ignored, but I do not deplore them at all -- I'm glad they are there. You, Mr. Poster, seem to deplore them, seem to wish ardently that a nice viable Muslim state of Iraq could be created, and that it would thrive (with lots of American know-how, with civilians paid a fortune, and companies making out like gangbusters while the ill-paid soldiers will continue, as combat troops or civil affairs, to risk their lives. And why would we wish to do this? So that the Sunnis and Shi'a live together in a Peaceable Kingdom, because nothing could be so terrible for world peace, for American interests, for Infidel interests everywhere, than making sure we head off a Sunni-Shi'a war.

Tell me again, by the way, just how long it would take, and what it would take on the part of the American army and taxpayers, to stick around long enough to create a "national consciousness" which will make the Kurds, 98% of whom voted in favor of independence in a referendum last January, and the Shi'a, go back into a nation-statee where the Sunnis, who are convinced, by the way, and nothing will un-convicne them, that they, the Sunni Arabs alone, actually constitute some 42-45% of the population (just ask Fouad Ajami what he discovered when he visited Iraq) -- and are determined not to yield poower. Why should they? The entire Arab world is controlled by the Sunnis. It is they, the Arabs, who control Islam. It is the Shi'a who are not only practically Infidels, but some of them are disturbingly and unacceptably Persian to boot.

There is much more to say, but at the moment, I don't feel like it. Saying the same thing over and over and over, and then having to reply to a mistatement or exaggeration or distortion of what I say, is beginning to disrupt the little Era of Good Feeling I was willing, uncharacteristically, to observe.

I think I shall return to my natural self.

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2005 8:10 PM

Addendum to any future metaphysics:

"Hugh wants us to walk away, watch Iraq go up in flames and presume something good will come of it. Don't buy into it folks. We walked away from Afghanistan in 1992 and it brought us the Taliban and 9-11."

"Walk away"? "Walk away" by remaining in the air and at sea, to bombard when necessary? Walk away by cutting off the jizyah of foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan (save for the handover of youknowwhat for "safekeeping" and I don't mean the essentially trivial Bin Laden)? "Walk awa" by readying a few thousand troops to seize the southern Sudan at the first sign of breaching of the latest phony treaty by Khartoum? "Walk away" by putting in a real, and not a hollow, energy plan that gives solar energy just a bit more than $52 million in tax breaks, and provides for a gigantic increase in nuclear energy (on the French model), and wind energy, and taxes gasoline, in steadily-increasing increments that the government promises will insure that the price of gasoline will always go up, will never go down, however the Saudis try to jerk the price down in order to ensure that we never get off oil. "Walk away" by closing down all those silly winning hearts-and-minds boondoggles for the likes of those in the "spreading democracy" racket -- and instead offer something for Muslims akin to what was done for (or is it "to") Soviet Communists with Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, and where Islam is analyzed, critcically, and the ways in which the teachings of Islamn get in the way of economic development and political liberty and all sorts of other things is, subtly but relentlessly, the theme of the programs.

And if America is to be advertised, it will be a lot less Britney Spears, and a lot more Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Let the audience figure out what our Founding Fathers had to offer. Britney Spears and her friends and admirers can be found on assorted Internet sites. Neither they, nor little programs showing how wonderful America is for Muslims (who ever thought that was an intelligent thing to broadcast -- don't we have enough trouble already with every other Muslim in the world shouting in one breath "I hate all Americans and want them dead" and in the second breath "Can you please get me a green card?") We don't want to hold out America as a place for Mulsims to come to. We want to offer them -- and not all that eagerly either -- the best that has been thought and said in American political and social life, and by extension, offer a glimpse into Western civilization for the self-primitivized Muslim masses. Some will begin to think. And think. They already have in Iran -- no thanks to us, all thanks to their personal exerpience with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The people in Iraq -- not the non-existent "Iraqi people" -- will also respond to the lessons that they themselves will provide, in whatever follos upon an American withdrawal. There will be casualties. You will read about them, or hear about them, occasionally, on television. It will not matter. You will be -- admit it -- largely indifferent. And why shouldn't you be? For they will not be American soldiers, but rather, "Iraqis." And the spectacle of what will follow will have its effects on Infidels in Europe, especially those who might have been tempted to believe that Islam is redeemable, that Tariq Ramadan's deceitful "European Islam" should be taken seriously, that somehow, we can all get along and no one should become unduly alarmed about the theory and practice of Islam.

The theory is in the books. The violence, the aggression, the crazy conspiracy theories, the inability to think in terms other than those of family and tribe, all this will be -- indeed for the American soldiers has been -- easily observed once we, the outside element that only seem to be the cause of problems -- have properly removed ourselves.

Iraq after the initial conquest has been largely valuable for one thing: a learning experience. 425,000 American soldiers have been in Iraq. Very few have been impressed with the gratitude, the loyalty, the sheer deep friendliness of so many Iraqis to Americans. Many more have been imporessed with the fantastic corruption, the fantastic selfishness (people trying only to grab what they can for themselves, with no hint of helping anything larger than themselves, and certainly not a place called "Iraq"), the fantastic meretriciousness toward the Infidel Americans. Of course there are exceptions, and the Americans have met every single one of those exceptions, for they are the very people who work for the Americans as translators, cooks, laundrymen, gardeners, drivers, and so on. But how many of them are they, out of 25 million? Perhaps, outside the special case of Kurdistan, a few hundred thousand? At most? These numbers matter.

"We walked away from Afghanistan...." Well, that is not exactly right. What happened is that the Americans were suckered by Saudi Arabia into entering into an alliance to supply weapons -- those thousands of Stinger missiles, for example, which the Americans distributed like confetti, and those various C.I.A. agents thrilled to be rehearsing the role of Lawrence of Afghanistan, as we fought "the Russkies" by the side of the noble Afghanis. Actually, in retrospect, it was silly to fight the Russians. They were less of a threat than a resurgent Islamic power in Afghanistan.

No, we didn't walk away. What happened is worse: we simply did not understand that Islam was the enemy. We were compoletely indifferent, and failed to understand, the nature of those thousands of madrasas set up in Pakistan, that turned out the Taliban ("talib" = "student"). We failed to understand that the Pakistani I.S.I. was not our friend, had its own goals in mind, and wished to make Afghanistan safe for the most disturbing brand of Islam. We failed to understand what the Taliban were all about, and did nothing when three countries recognized that regime -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan. It was not a case of "waling away." It was worse -- a case of not doing everything to diminish the role and power of Islam in Afghanistan. We should have backed the warlords to the hilt, and supplied them, and let them do the fighting with American arms. And we could, of course, have bombed from afar -- just as I am suggesting can be done with Iraq after the soldiers, those "boots on the ground" you refer to in your posting -- have gone.

The case of Afghanistan does nothing to support your arguments. What we did, what we did not do, what we did not understand about Islam in Afghanistan, what we did not understand about using indigenous forces who only needed to be resupplied for they were naturally warlike, and eager to win power for themselves and crush the Taliban -- that all is part of my argument, supports what I propose.

One wonders why you assume that if we leave, it will immediately lead to victory by the Shi'a. Why? Why do you not assume a Sunni-Shi'a war will go on forever, or that Iraq will dissolve, with all sorts of consequences -- none of them good, for Iran, or rather for the current regime in Iran. And with all sorts of consequences for that other malevolent power that, with Iran, has been the chief beneficiary of the removal of Saddam Hussein -- Saudi Arabia. For now the Saudis must divert money and attention to the Shi'a threat that, unlike in 1991, the Americdans have no intention of helping them with -- the days of Saudis calling the tune are, or should be, permanently over.

Perhaps they'd like to buy some last-resort protection -- you know, we fly out the Al-Saud princes and princelings, and grandly allow them to settle in the U.S., in the largest witness-protection program in history so that Al Qaeda and their own people can't kill them? What shall we charge?

I understand that the Saudis have nearly $1 trillion stashed away. Gosh, how much of it should we ask for? I mean, what are their lives worth to them, anyway?

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2005 8:54 PM

Iraq is not a total failure.1 The capture and toppling of Saddam stop the millions of dollars he was sending to suicide bombers in Israel.2 It force Libyan leader Qudaffi to give up his WMD program.

Posted by: RED at August 29, 2005 9:02 PM

If only Geo had not allowed himself to be photographed smooching that Saudi. I know Geo works in strange and mysterious ways. He is a political shapeshifter (most politicians are) and he is fairly good at it. What appears to be failure to some, may actually be planned events on the way to success. I tried to remote view some of those closed meetings he has with advisors ect, but discovered they all were wearing tin foil caps. It does seem like Geo used a bulldozer to move some dog poop off the lawn in Iraq, and got the wrong lawn at that. But that might be part of the plan, and also why we dont just jump up and leave. Bushes plan is not shallow, it is deep, very deep. So deep in fact that the ordinary man cant comprehend it.
So dont be to hard on Geo, dont ask embarrassing questions, dont make accusations, and stop shouting at him...cant you see there is a genius at work??

IA786 The UN is a defuct organisation and everyone knows it...well maybe not everyone, there is always 10% that dont get the word.
Everything you cited is undoubtably true, those countrys probably do, more often than not, line up in opposition to the US and Israel. That does not automatically make the UN's position the correct one. Nothing the UN says or does is infallible. There are vested interests all over the place and its encrusted with corruption. Your own statements are good reason for the US to get out of the UN, stop giving it anything, and watch it crumble.

Posted by: duh_swami at August 29, 2005 9:37 PM

"Some [Muslims] will begin to think. And think. They already have in Iran -- no thanks to us, all thanks to their personal exerpience with the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Actually, the thinking Muslims in Iran have a lot to do with us -- specifically, with the American support of the Shah of Iran, who helped to bring Persia out of its centuries of Islamic backwardness into the 20th century. He could not have subjected his motherland to this kind of unnatural, high-speed Progress had he not been rather brutal (since as Ataturk and Sokarno knew, Muslims won't progress without the tough love of a dictator, and even then the progress will be frightfully flawed more through the recalcitrance of the Koranic clay than through the forceful measures to wrest humanity out of it) and had he not had American support -- which, once yanked by that Rebel Yank Carter, caused it to revert back to the Darkest of Muslim Ages again.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at August 29, 2005 10:42 PM

Publicly the Bush Administration may not be admitting to it, but privately a reconciliation of sorts has already gone on between the governments of America and France as can be seen in strong synchronized covert intelligence actions undertaken between the two countries recently.

It would seem that the ricin scare in Paris two years ago awakened a few French officials and resulted in what might until recently have been an unthinkable co-operation between Paris and Washington. Although rarely mentioned or alluded to in the media, the realignment between the two is unmistakable and real.

p.s.-Removing Saddam Hussein and his terrorist dictatorship was good for the world. It is a shame that removing his regime cost so many lives and resulted in such carnage--but that is due to the nature of Islamic ideology. Human life is worth nothing in Islam and that is reflected in the political fortunes of the people living under its tyranny.

Posted by: pythagoras at August 29, 2005 10:48 PM

A transcript of the Sarkozy-Ramadan confrontation can be found at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mivy/linfo/sarkoshow/integral_s_r.htm

Posted by: philiph35 at August 29, 2005 11:28 PM

Dear Ia treats us to the logical fallacy "Appeal to Common Opinion" as response to the ineffable Hugh.

Has Ia none of his own logical fallacies to bring to bear?

Or, in words that he will understand (he's attending a madrassa, after all):

Typical deluded anti-Semite.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at August 29, 2005 11:41 PM

HUGH: "There is much more to say, but at the moment, I don't feel like it. Saying the same thing over and over and over, and then having to reply to a mistatement or exaggeration or distortion of what I say, is beginning to disrupt the little Era of Good Feeling I was willing, uncharacteristically, to observe.

"I think I shall return to my natural self."

Believe it or not Hugh, I admire your passion.

Both you and Rebecca ask how long will it take? Of course I can't be certain. The unraveling of the Constitutional talks has certainly set back the timetable. I like to believe the bulk of our troops will be out of Iraq by the 2008 Presidential election. This is certainly not an impossible prospect. It doesn't mean Iraq will be the picture of stability by then, just that whatever Iraqi gov't is in place will have the wherewithall the keep the country from becoming a failed state.

And if - as you suggest - I'm wrong about a Shiite triumph in the impending Civil War that we both agree will accompany an American withdrawal, the alternative IS a fractured, failed state, with all the attending repercussions. Somalia has become a haven for terrorists precisely for this reason.

You suggest that we should never have challenged the Russians in Afghanistan. This is the kind of nonsense one hears from the Left...as if the brutal rape of a small country by a neighboring super-power is morally neutral...the migratory genocide, the torture chambers of KHAD, the poisoning of water wells...this was all none of our business.

Has it ever occurred to you that had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan gone unchallenged, history might be very different today? The collapse of the Soviet Empire was THEE seminal event of the second-half of the 20th century; defeat in Afghanistan was integral to that process. I have no idea about your thoughts regarding Communism and Soviet imperialism, but I personally feel that the world is a much better place without them.

As you suggest, the Pakistani ISI did not have our best interests at heart while they funnelled the lion's share of our assistance to Hekmatyar. This was the achillees heel of our aid program; but Pakistan was our only access to Afghanistan and the price for Pakistani cooperation was that they controlled the pipeline.

But the truth is, there was no constituency in Afghanistan for a "Democratic" resistance. Massoud and Rabbini weren't as radical as Hekmatyar, but they were far from moderates. And Dostum was mostly just an opportunist, putting his finger to check the wind and siding in consecutive order with the Soviets, Rabbini and finally Hekmatyar.

In the absence of a "Democratic" resistance, the USA did what it could to defeat the Soviets. You have the benefit of hindsight in suggesting that Communism would have been preferable than Islamism in Afghanistan. But again, none of us know what the world would look like today if the international community had acquiesed to the Soviet invasion.

After the Soviet defeat, the warlords began their fratricidal destruction of the country. There was no Taliban at this time. The USA understandably through our hands in disgust and walked away. But doing so just gave the warlords carte blanch to wallow in slaughter. The Taliban emerged as an outside force...a real alternative to continued slaughter. And the rest is history.

I don't have all the answers. I could be wrong. I'm not a self-proclaimed genius. All I have is my knowledge of history - which is considerable but certainly not comprehensive - and my instincts.

My wisdom, knowledge and instincts all tell me that letting Iraq descend into a bloody chaos (one that will make today's killing look like a Sunday school picnic) is not a good thing; that in such an environment, a radically extremist movement (just like in Afghanistan) is likely to emerge to restore order and impose the most obscene kind of fanatical Islam on the population; that the triumph of extremism in Iraq will accelerate extremism throughout the Muslim world; that your panacea of American airpower will not so easily alter events the way you perceive...and that we will surely someday soon pay a heavy price if we give up on Iraq.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 30, 2005 12:12 AM

"Nicholas Sarkozy, the unbeatable future president"

Not so fast. The guy is a cuckold and a loser. He is toast. He won't be the French president.

"Future French President Nicolas Sarkozy's Future Screwed As His wife Is Screwing Another Man"

Posted by: dtlc at August 30, 2005 3:22 AM

phillip35, thanks for that transcript!

Hugh, by the way, her name is Caroline Fourest, not Catherine (I found a site quoting Ms. Fourest to the effect that Tariq Ramadan got her name wrong as "Catherine", one indication among many others that he had not even read her book before accusing her of a "pro-Zionist" agenda).

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at August 30, 2005 4:38 AM

Hugh,

When you talk about the steps which must be undertaken to reduce our dependency on the oil ticks, I agree. The problem I have with your arguments is the liklihood of a global depression if these steps are not taken before your plan for infighting is implemented.

Supporting an independent Kurdistan, including parts of present Iraq, is just. The Sunnis in Iraq, more accurately the Baathists, have been too privileged and brutal to give up the deal they had under Saddam. Many Shia in Iraq are not much better than the Iranian model. All this is true. The condtions are ripe for inter-Muslim fighting on a scale not seen since, well, the last time. They love to fight.

Without a Marshall Plan for energy independence the oil tail will continue to wag the dog of foreign policy. There is no chance the U.S. will change policy before this constitution plays out one way or another, and the October elections work or don't. I respect your prodigious intellect and your intimidating breadth of knowledge, but American troops will be part of Iraq for the forseeable future.

I don't see the constitution as the failure some claim it is. Opposing values are found throughout our constitution. Hunting for the happy middle, while respecting the legitimacy of both ends of the political or philosophical spectrum, is governance. Most importantly, fighting about the wording suggests the document might be taken seriously.

Nothing is more important than the norm which underlies all the other norms: Hans Kelsen's grundnorm. The big norm which is lacking in the Middle East is a fundamental respect for primary law, other than sharia. Let them debate, argue, sweat out every detail. Nothing less will encourage respect for the ultimate product.

Posted by: Beagle at August 30, 2005 5:39 AM

Like an european I would like to say, that yes, many europeans are dhirmis and are very lost, but some people is awakening up, and in addition, the numbers of muslims aren´t so espectacular, 20 millions, the practicants are few and many people are agnostic, you have to know that TV corrupts a lot of the muslim´s minds and we have a power to corrupt their moral.
Deporting radicals and islamists, is very necessary and the best way to treat the islamic problem, is helping them to apostatize their religion for christianism, agnosticism, atheism or others.
I want to give an optimistic view, like an spanish, catholic christian and from western, We will win.

Posted by: Franze at August 30, 2005 2:52 PM

I didn't know what a boondoggle was until today.

Thanks - I'll try and use that word at the earliest opportunity.

Posted by: Interested at August 30, 2005 3:04 PM

The poster ("Beagle") above claims that until America has "energy independence" it will remain in Iraq. There are several things to say about that. "Energy independence" is a chimera, and what's worse, it is a chimera that confuses, and for two reasons.

The first is that "energy independence" is largely unattainable [and when you call for a "Marshall Plan for energy independence" I assume you mean, rather, a "Manhattan Project"] and what's more, meaningless as a goal. As long as Muslim states take in from the sale of oil and gas. Even if the United States is not a customer, in some hypothetically energy-independent future, there are plenty of customers. Ways have to be devised to lower the take of OPEC oil states, so that Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Iran, Iraq, and all the rest no longer have the financial wherewithal to buy arms, to pay for mosques and madrasas, and most importantly, to employ, directly or indirectly, a small army of apologists -- ex-diplomats, ex-intelligence agents, P.R. firms, academics supported in the Esposito manner with Arab funds donated to this or that "Center for this and that," and so on.
It means nothing if the United States buys or does not buy oil (and natural gas) from Muslim countries; what counts is how much they take in, not from whom they take it in.

And a second point about that phrase "energy indepednence." It suggests to people that we are somehow "dependent" on Arab and Muslim oil states. We are no more "dependent" on them than you and I are on the grocery store we go to. The idea of "dependence" suggests that we must be nice to them, that we cannot afford not to be nice to them, that our policies somehow have to win them over. Nonsense. It has to be repeated one thousand times, or ten thousand: the buying of oil and gas from Muslim states is strictly an economic transaction. We need never do them favors of any kind. We need never have done them favors. Indeed, the dreamy belief that we have to do them favors, so that they will sell us at prices of-- what is it, $67/barrel? -- for oil that costs them a $1/barrel to lift, or let's even say $2/barrel, is absurd. Otherwise intelligtent people become foolish when they talk about oil. This was all dealt with so completely in J. B. Kelly's "Arabia, The Gulf, and The West," and has been dealt with dryly by Professor Morris Adelstein and other oil economists, that one tires of repeating it. In 1973, during the so-called "Oil Embargo," the two pro-Israel consuming countries, the United States and the Netherlands, received more oil from the Arabs than did Britain and France, which were notoriously appeasement-minded.

There is NO need to do Saudi Arabia any favors. Treat it as roughly as you want -- indeed, start charging the Saudis for all sorts of things. They want to send 10,000 students to American universities. And some people think that is great, becuase they will pay full freight. No -- that's only part of it. The cost of having them here, of monitoring them, of watching what they do to support Da'wa or distribute funds or even spread anti-Infidel propaganda, costs us a lot. Make each of those students pay a special "tax." Let it be nominal -- say, half-a-million dollars each, which if there are 10,000 students, a mere %5 billion, and the Saudis just this year are taking in at least $75 billion more than last year. No, make it a million dollars per student -- $10 billion is nothing to the Saudis. Let them pay for the privilege of getting an education here, from the chief Infidel country, and the chief victim of Wahhabi-financed terrorism around the world.

You predict that "American troops will be part of Iraq for the forseeable future." That is madness. If we look this gift horse in the mouth, the gift of a Sunni-Shi'a war that will continue without end, and continue to stay to suppress the Sunni insurgency (both Ba'athist and Zarqawi parts), on behalf not of something called the "freedom-loving Iraqis" (god what nonsense people allow themselves to believe, and how readily they do so instead of putting in some days or weeks of lucubration), but really on behalf of the Shi'as who now wish to do to the Sunnis, more or less, what the Sunnis for so long did to them, then more Americans will come to recognize, pari passu as their understanding of Islam deepens, the common-sensical nature of suggesting that the Americans should leave, and watch what happens from afar, if need be intervening only by bombing (with no airforce and no missiles, no one in Iraq can do much abou tthat) and by sending equipment to whichever side one favors, and interdicting that sent by outsiders whenever one wishes.

And a free Kurdistan is a specter that haunts the Arab League. Few seem to have noticed that its Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, is up in arms about the failure of the Iraqi constitution to identify the country as "Arab." This is extremely important to the "Arabs" -- they want that label pinned. Fewer still may recall that in 1989, at Taif, in Saudi Arabia, the Christians of Lebanon, above all the Maronites of Lebanon, were forced by the Saudis to accept wording in the Lebanese Constitution that would, for the first time, identify Lebanon as an "Arab country." It stuck in the craw of all Lebanese Christians. It did not, apparently, cause David Satterfield of the State Department, who was in attendance at Taif and seemed not even to realize how dangerous this clause was for Lebanese Christians (but they don't count -- not to the American State Department) and indeed for other non-Arab or non-Muslim groups in what so many keep calling, so inaccurately, and so cruelly, the "Arab world."

If "American troops" remain in any numbers in Iraq for more than a year, then there is no chance -- none-- that the Republicans will win in the next presidential election. Does it matter? It does, because so far no Henry Jacksons have appeared in the Democratic Party. They may exist. Some intelligent Democrat may yet come out for withdrawal of troops, not from the left, with all the usual silly and sinister Cindy-Sheehan or Michael-Scheuer (they are ideological twins, they were separated at birth) beliefs about "oil" or "Israel" or something else explaining this war. But "this war" was justified. This "invasion" was not nonsensical. But it is this "peace" being established, or attempting to be established, in Iraq -- this whole project, that is based on a misunderstanding of Islam (and not "terrorism") as the menace, not an underestimating of the danger of demographic conquest by Muslims in Western Europe, and on an ignorance of the deep resentments between Kurds and Arabs, and among the Arabs, the Sunni and Shi'a, that go back to the earliest days of modern Iraq -- and long before, some 1200 or so years before. To those who raise what they uncleverly call the "Pottery Barn" problem -- "you broke it, you fix it" -- it has to be repeated: the Americnas did not "break" Iraq. It was a mess -- a political, economic, and moral mess. It is much better now, thanks to the Americans, and only to the Americans.

But it is time to put down the Infidel Man's burden, and to think a bit more clearly about the varieties of instruments of Jihad, and the best way to contain Islam. And that "best way" requires us to leave Iraq, not to stay.

Finally, it is not often that one sees at mass-market websites the name Hans Kelsen invoked. I rushed right to my Julius Stone for a refresher course. What's next? Savigny? Lauterpacht? Professor Norman Sanction?

Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2005 3:26 PM

thanks to whoever it was who posted the sarkozy-ramadan debate

ramadan said

"il y a aujourd'hui en france un antisemitisme, il faut le condamner, mais il y a aussi un rascisme anti arabe, un rascisme anti noir, il y a un rascisme islamophobe aujourd'hui, il ne faut pas que nous fassions de distinction entre ces rascismes-la, il faut les condamner tous, et de la meme facon"
(sorry i dont know how to put the accents in)

thus anti islamists are put in the same bracket as jew haters, arab haters and black haters. but opposing a religion (and im not saying islam is merely a religion) must not be viewed as rascism,
and the ramadans of this world must be clearly told so. unfortunately nicholas sarkozy does not seem to have picked up on this

incidentally someone was telling me that islamophobia is not hatred of islam. a phobia is not hatred, the word apparently means fear, an irrational fear. people who know the facts about islam and fear it are not islamophobic, because there is nothing irrational about their fear of islam

as to reconciliation with the french, well, if sarkozys statement

"ce n'est pas a la republique de s'adapter"

is an indication of current mentality in his government then i would say its probably overdue

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 30, 2005 5:02 PM

Intriging idea of the al-saud (what are there, somthing like 10,000 of them?) living as "protected people in the U.S. But in addition to the multi-hundred billion dollar jizya, there should be a few "rules", too.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 30, 2005 5:21 PM

"there should be a few "rules", too [for the al-Saud offered refuge in the United States, for a price].
-- from a posting above

Yes, and wouldn't it be fun to make up those rules for them?

I'd start with daily mandatory chapel before re-education classes, with readings from both the Old and the New Testaments. And of course at the end of the day, lights out at 9:30. And in between -- oh, there are ways to make Abdullah and Faisal and Fahd and Bandar and the rest of the humorously "royal" family ("Royal since 1920" when they defeated another tribe, not quite as primitive and possibly less fanatical, the Jabal Shammar) learn to adjust to our ways.

Who wants to make up a list of such rules, in the spirit of the Boyntons at Deerfield, or Lewis Perry at Exeter? Could be fun.

Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2005 9:08 PM

Any chance to get that Ramadan/Szarkozy interview translated?

Posted by: Terminator at August 30, 2005 9:12 PM

RE: War In Iraq

I haven't read many previous posts but let me add some facts:

Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 93 WTC bombing was an Iraqi agent.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, one of the first things he did was to steal blank Kuwaiti Passports, whom do you think he gave them to?

The al-qaeda/Iraq connection is proven as the documentation(public record)is there but the media won't print it.

WMD was a "smoke screen" as our government knows more than they are telling us, nor could we reveal our strategy to the "enemy"

It is not about Iraq, it is about SAUDIA ARABIA!!

Read the following:
"The Shadow War" by Richard Miniter
"The War Against America" by Laurie Mylorie
(Clinton"s pres advisor in '94)
"The Secret War" by Dr George Freidman

Posted by: learjet0450 at August 30, 2005 9:20 PM

"Who wants to make up a list of such rules"

Here's one rule: Mandatory television watching, including such programs as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Simpsons and the 700 Club -- but not including PBS Specials on the History of Islam.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at August 31, 2005 1:53 AM

IA: Dream on. The British Government may, on occasion on the international stage, seem "out of step" with our American friends, but.....

don't let that give you hope of any kind of wedge appearing anytime soon.

All British Politicians KNOW the bond between the British People & the American People, & will not, under any circumstances, attempt to break that bond - even if they could.

You see, the people of Great Britian know that we would not have a country now if it were not for our American friends & their generosity.

We would either be speaking German or Russian now in the UK if it weren't for the American Military & Taxpayers.

We are them, they are us. Their fight is our fight - & not because Princess Bliar is trying to impress that intellectual omeaba Bush.

Dream on thinking that the UN, its structure & voting has any bearing in the real world. Who, in any democracy, actually supports the UN now? We in the West pay for the damn thing - yet fill it with Islamic despots, tyrants & murderers & give them voting rights! & you have the audacity to place any credence whatsoever in any UN vote?.

The UN is in its death throws. Hopefully John Bolton will succeed in removing the "top 10 floors". (Of course, your kind have already tried that on a couple of New York buildings, I recall.....)

Dream on IA - dream of the Caliphate, marrying 4 times & eventually being given the opportunity to fight & die in Holy War in Dar Al Harb - you & your kind will be driven out of the West.

We always answer the call against invaders.

All is to come, when we are fully awake. Is that an alarm clock I hear?......

Posted by: albion at August 31, 2005 4:59 AM

albion:

I doubt ia786 will check back to this thread, but I hope that you do.

Frankly, your post made my day - and I found it inspiring.

I copied and saved it to be reposted later on other threads as the need arises - I hope you don't mind. Sometimes the trolls need a little reminder.

Thank you.

CGW

Posted by: CGW at August 31, 2005 11:39 AM

Near as I can tell, the only religion of the al-saud seems to be the single-minded unfettered pursuit of each of the Seven Deadly Sins. No point in curtailing their open practice of this religion in fear of spreading it to the Western ummah. Maybe forcing them to pray 5 times a day and give up alcohol would be a good start.

Posted by: Infidel33 at August 31, 2005 12:37 PM

CGW,

Sometimes the trolls need a little reminder.

What we need here is freedom from trolls and that is not to be accomplished through reminding, but ignoring.

BTW, that particular troll got tons of reminders, slaps, kicks and jeers yet it never prevented him from regurgitating the same idiocies and lies over and over again. Also, according to my friend, who is quite an accomplished psychologist, the poor creature seems to be mentally ill.

So, please ignore him in the future. Let him perform in a jihadi site where he rightfully belongs.

Posted by: thomas. h at August 31, 2005 12:44 PM

thomas h.:

You're right. of course. I rarely, if ever, respond to trolls. The excellent post will serve as a reminder to all of us - a reminder of unity, and solidarity, and the eventual and inevitable triumph of Enlightened Western Civilization over barbarity. That's perhaps its true value.

Posted by: CGW at August 31, 2005 5:33 PM

Hugh makes very similar arguments to the first US isolationists both before WW1, and both before and after WW2. 'Those distant peoples can't be worth any of our lives'. 'Look how long all those Europeans have been fighting each other - stay out of it all'.
Yes, Bush is a bit Wilsonian, but were Wilson's ideals and aims worthless, or were they in fact triumphant both post 1945 and post 1990 'overseas'?
By going into isolation in the 1930s, the US ensured that it would have to return overseas and fight a greater war - no, wars - to re-establish its security. The same would certainly follow Hugh's policy.
Hugh is so scornful of all the Arab peoples, and so selective about who he would protect [Iraqi Kurds and Christians - how, exactly?]. Yeah, tell that to the tribal peoples and the Christians in Vietnam today.
By scuttling its project after 2 years, the US would ensure it lost any credibility in the area, especially with Israel but also in Europe, Asia, indeed the world. Even after 10 years in Vietnam [which WAS useful to the Asian world despite all the propaganda] it still suffered many years of political weakness as the inevitable price for scuttling [rather than just losing it gave up]. Who relies on France today, for instance?
Does Hugh believe this is an OK price?
His desire - expectation - to see the Arabs slaughter each other again is inhumane and almost racist, but how could it possibly make the world safer in the eyes of any other Moslems anywhere? Indonesia has 250 million for a start.
Sorry Hugh, you are a weak reed in this whole debate...

Posted by: nondimi at September 1, 2005 1:19 AM

"His desire - expectation - to see the Arabs slaughter each other again is inhumane and almost racist, but how could it possibly make the world safer in the eyes of any other Moslems anywhere?"

I think his point is that if muslims have demonstrated their intolerance of others, even other muslim sects, and are insistent on killing those who don't believe exactly as they do, then maybe it's preferable for them to engage in internecine conflict than to be killing us. I don't see how that's racist. I'd call it basic self-preservation.

Posted by: Infidel33 at September 1, 2005 9:18 AM

The incoherence, the transparent misstatements, and the rest of the nonsenical charges, up to and including that of being a "racist" (the all-purpose charge) because I would prefer that the Americans cease to put down the Sunni insurgency in the interests of the Shi'a, whether Iranian-allied or not, but to force the Shi'a and Sunni to deal directly with each other -- and so they will, perhaps through a certain amount of warfare, perhaps not.

Let me take the absurd charges in turn.

The first is that my suggestion that resources are now being misallocated in Iraq amounts to "isolationism." Why? Have I not gone out of my way (even perhaps a little too much) to repeat that the initial invasion was rational, and that there was reason to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons, or weapons projects that he should not be allowed to possess, or to develop. If, as it now seems likely, it was to be a choice of only one from Column A, I would have chosen Iran as the proper target -- not for an "invasion" but rather for bombing from planes, missiles, and so on, in order to disrupt its nuclear weapons project, and to expose the regime to the ridicule of its already-disaffected citizens (some claim those citizens would rally round the Islamic Republic -- hatred for the regime is too deep and widespread, for nationalist pride in nuclear weapons to outweigh the desire to see the regime humiliatied, at least among the most morally and intellectualy advanced Iranians, and in the end it is their view that matters, not that of the primitives). But Iraq War Part One was justifiable. And that famous Al-Qaeda connection does not have to be proved beyond some sort of reasonable doubt. Saddam Hussein supported Hamas -- i.e., terrorism. Iraq was a Muslim country. No Muslim country -- none -- can be allowed to acquire major weaponry, of the kind it was feared Saddam Hussein had. Why? Because Islam itself declares, and inculcates in
Beleivers, that it must spread over the globe, that it must triumph over (not necessarily kill, but triumph over and subjugate) all non-Muslims everywhere. And whenever Muslims have, over 1350 years, had a chance to put that doctrine into practice, whenever they have possessed the wherewithal, they have tried to do so. That's all we need to know. And the same attitude should be taken if Egypt -- which last year spent $7.5 billion on arms (why?)-- more than any other buyer of arms save for China and India, which are not exactly the same size -- were to acquire or try to acquire WMD or anything like it. The regime, or elements within the regime, or rogue elements within the regime, or elements outside the regime -- it doesn't matter in a Muslim country. If such weaponry exists, it is a danger to Infidels everywhere, and that must be understood, everywhere in the governments of the Infidel world.

One who continues to defend the invasion of Iraq, as I do, is hardly an isolationist. Someone who further wishes a withdrawal now from Iraq so as to exploit the natural fissures within Islam for our goals, our purposes. And our goals, our purposes, should be to:

Divide and demoralize Islam, by allowing Sunnis and Shi'a to battle it out in the one country in the world where such division could draw in outside forces, and in so doing, use up materiel, men, and attention from the two countries that have benefited most from the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime -- Shi'a Iran and Sunni (Wahhabi) Saudi Arabia.

And the effect on Shi'a and Sunnis in Yemen (where they divide the population), in Saudi Arabia (where the Shi'a are concentrated in the oil-bearing eastern province), in Bahrain, in Pakistan (where the Shi'a have endured, and almost never responded, to Sunni attacks for a long time), even in Lebanon, where one would like to think the Hezollah enthusiasts will decide that duty in Iraq calls -- if any or all, or part of this division were to be encouraged, that would be desirable from the point of view of non-Muslims.

2) To demoralize Islam, and to lessen its appeal within the Infidel world.

The campaigns of Da'wa all over the Western world need to be checked. They appeal to the economically and above all psychically marginal, and that includes those who see Islam, rightly, as the current vehicle of protest and alienation against The System, Amerika, The World, call it what you will. If you yearn for a kind of seig-heiling Nuremberg-Rally or Piazza-Venezia hailing of Il Granitico (Mussolini), or if you just like the world of special names and secret handshakes and so on, then Islam is for you. The umma al-islammiya, for a Westerner, gives you a chance to assume a special Arab name -- like Soleiman al-Kosovi, for example -- and to feel --well, "spehshal," as the lady says on Saturday Night Live. Of course you are not realy "spehshal" because there are another billion of you, but you are "spehshal" if you have "reverted" to Islam in the Western world. And there are always those nutty Spiritual-searchers, from St. John Philby to Leopold Weiss and Esmat Bey to John Walker Lindh, the baby-faced moron born and mis-raised in Marin County.

It is absurd to describe someone as an "isolationist" who has repeatedly suggested all kinds of things that could be undertaken, from damaging Islamic propaganda outlets (destroing satellites, interfering with communications in Arabic or Urdu on the Internet, ending the foreign-aid jizyah, intervening militarily when it makes sense), simply because I think that Iraw is now the best place to exploit the natural fissures by leaving, rather than staying.

I did not say there should be no American troops anywhere in the area. I did not say that we should be indifferent to the Kurds -- I suggested that we militarily and diplomatically (have you forgotten what I wrote about guaranteeing to the Turks that their territory would not be claimed by Kurdistan -- but that Turkey should not interfere with the creation of an independent Kurdish state that would not only be a source of constant worry for Syria and Iran -- the latter is only 50% Persian in its population -- but also an example to the Berbers and other non-Arab Muslims, of what can be achieved, and what the Americans may look favorably upon, for their own reasons).

You prate about "Wilsonian self-determination" but for some reason you appear not to favor my favoring of "self-determination" for the Kurds, who have a language and culture and sense of identity that has never received political expression -- and now is the perefect time, and place, to redeem the promise made after World War I, for a free Kurdish state. And not only for the Kurds, but for the sake of containing, constraining, Islam, and heightening awareness of the Arab supremacist ideology that runs through Islam.

Anything and everything that weakens the unity and coherence of Islam is to be encouraged -- as long as Infidels do not fool themselves into believing in something called "moderate" Islam or believe that there is something called "Islamism" or "Jihadism" that is simply some recent mutant version of Islam -- it is not. The Jihad is part of Islam, even central to Islam. If it was not constantly acted upon (though if one investigates, one sees an uninterrupted series of attacks on non-Muslim forces long after the Muslims were stopped outside Poitiers, in the west, and in Vienna in the east).

The notion , that even an intelligent scholar such as Bassam Tibi, appears now to be pushing (in a recent article in The International Herald Tribune -- an absolutely incoherent article, that bears no resemblance to the article on Jihad he wrote a decade ago that will appear in the forthcoming "The Legacy of Jihad" by Andrew Bostom) -- that "Jihadism" comes out of "Islamism" [sic] is absurd. The Jihad comes out of, is central to, Islam, not "Islamism." And what the hell is "Jihadism"?

If the impulse to Jihad had historically to be channeled at times into such things as sea-attacks on European villages, or officially-regulated attacks on Christian shipping (as with the Barbary "Pirates"), this reflected not an end to Jihad, not Jihad falling into desuetude, but two things:

1) within the cocoon of Muslim rule, as in the Ottoman Empire, it was easy to ignore the outside, non-Muslim world. Villagers going about their humble lives would be unaware of the need to conquer.

2) the Muslim rulers' inability to win -- after all, the Ottomans tried not once but twice to conquer Vienna -- gave them pause. They lacked the wherewithal to conduct Jihad.

3) It was only in recent years, with OPEC revenues, and the simultaneous mass-migraton of Muslims, unopposed by Infidels, to Germany, to France, to England (with Turks, Algerians and Moroccans, and Pakistanis, respectively making up the major component), that Jihad -- never gone, never absent, except through the rose-colored glasses of assorted Espositos ("The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?" -- why, myth, of course, how silly of you even to ask) and Noah ("After Jihad") Feldmans -- made a comeback. Why? Because it could.

I am taken to task for the remarkable notion that I would prefer wherever possible to avoid American casualties, American money being squandeed, Americans kept confused about the nature of the conflict. This is supposed to amount to "isolationism."

I am also taken to task with the easiest and cheapest term of opprobium apparently now known to Western man: I am a "racist." Why? Because I would rather see Sunnis and Shi'a fight each other, as they will anyway, without the Americans in the middle, doing the work of the Shi'a for them. For all I know, there will not be such a fight -- I can't guarantee it. It might be that an American withdrawal will lead to the establishment of the Peaceable Kingdom.

I like to see lions lying down with lambs as well as the next sentimentalist. But what if, as in Iraq, there really aren't any lambs -- just two different kinds of lions?

Posted by: Hugh at September 1, 2005 10:23 AM

You can trust the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried every other alternative. ~ Winston Churchill

Posted by: Timbo at September 1, 2005 10:57 AM

nondimi, etc:

I'm sure if this was 1965 (instead of 2005) and the topic was Viet Nam (instead of Iraq) you would be telling us all about the domino theory, and how we shouldn't abandon the hapless South Vietnamese, wouldn't you? Prissy intellectual American arguments, which were just as worthless as Marxism itself.

How neatly you theorize the abject failure and anarchy your foreign policies always create. It all makes perfect sense, shame about the interminable chaos..... never mind, hey?

One of Napoleon’s generals remarked upon the triumphant march into Moscow (a deserted and arsoned shell): "Victory without fruits! Spectacle without spectators!" Likewise the American grand army finds itself in a hostile and shattered landscape, in a sea of enemies, bereft of cheering crowds and rewards. Time to leave.

The situation in Iraq is little short of anarchy, the motives illusory, and yet you so happily deceive yourself that more of the same poisonous quackery is going to make the patient well.

Posted by: Timbo at September 1, 2005 12:10 PM