How true!

It’s amazing that as a capitalistic society that we don’t weigh the benefits of investment in the case of our contributions to Islamic countries. If Islamic countries with their greedy little hands held out for money were a company or a corporation, eventually investors, seeing no return on their money, would simply stop investing.

It has to be the jizya, there’s just no other way to explain it. Somewhere in history there must be a defining moment where the West and everybody else who gives the Arabian countries money hand over fist must’ve agreed to the Dhimmi role and the paying of the tax because there simply isn’t any other logical explanation, is there?

They’ve done nothing for us lately or any other time other than attack us, stand in the way of progress and simple human rights, beg for money and then use that money to kill us with –and the whole time they use their special ‘reality-distortion’ powers to loudly whine and complain that they’re the real victims while the plain truth is evident to anyone with eyes to see with –it’s really amazing!

Islam has been a diseased mosquito carrying around in its gut a plague that has spread too far over time. It’s way past time we cut off giving ANY money to ANY countries which have Islamic ties and really hammer into their thick heads about who’s side they’re on, just as Bush said shortly after his declared “war on terrah” and force the hands of the Muslims to do for themselves.

The mosquito of Islam needs to be smacked, squashed, and obliterated. It festers on its own well enough so if we stop feeding it nutrition, it’ll eventually whither up and die all by itself. It may take awhile, but eventually all cancers kill their host, of which their own societies now play host to.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at September 19, 2005 12:39 PM

American and other taxpayers don't realize that by giving money to Muslim countries they are being taxed against their will and getting nothing but hostile feelings for their efforts.

Posted by: epg at September 19, 2005 1:17 PM

Hugh's passion and eloquence are unquestionable, but a thoughtful examination of what he's advocating here is quite disturbing. In essence, he's calling for the West to abandon the fight for the soul of the Muslim world, to cede it to the most fanatical and violent elements and hope all their energies are dissipated on internal fratricide.

Hugh would have us walk away from Afghanistan, let the Taliban bomb the dams, recapture the country and reimpose the dark ages after so much progress has been made to revive civilization there...(while the Afghans certainly have a long way to go, they have come far since the ouster of the Taliban). And he applies the same formula for Iraq.

Let the Shiites and Sunnis slaughter one another while the West rolleth merrily along. Except that fratricidal bloodletting is never interminable; someone usually wins. Removing the Western presence from the equation means and end to the ability of the West to effect outcomes; proponents of moderation in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world will be losing an important source of material and moral support, leaving the field to extremists and their patrons (Iran, the House of Saud, etc).

Hugh seems to think that by leaving the Muslim world to its own devices, we can send it crashing to a halt in the lethargy and fatalism of its religious submission. This might have been possible 50 years ago, but the technological genie is already out of the bottle. Pakistan has a nuclear capability; Iran is not far behind. The oil billions will keep flowing in and the pull of wealth and opportunity for Westerners will remain irresistable (credit it to our vaunted pragmatism).

To put it in a nutshell, the economics of civilizational cross-fertilization have reached the point of no return; we are living in a global economy and information and expertise will remain readily available to the Muslim world regardless of Hugh's fondest wishes. But his advocacy of geo-political retreat is another story; this is entirely possible and I reiterate, would - at least in my opinion - result in the strengthening of extremism in the Muslim world.

Who would we rather have ruling Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai or Mullah Omar? Hugh seems to prefer Mullah Omar because he would run the country into the ground, which would apparently discredit Islam in the eyes of Muslims and thus help the West.

May I remind everyone that Mullah Omar once did rule Afghanistan and it resulted in the murder of 3000 Americans on Sept 11, 2001. This war of civilization can be won, but not by turning our backs on the Muslim world.

Where Hugh certainly gets it right is in his advocacy of taking on the Muslim world on the ideological battlefield. Instead of wearing blind-folds and gags, our professors, publishers and politicians should be hammering home the utilitarian and moral worth of Western freedom at every opportunity. Muslim students in the West should be educated and inculcated with WESTERN values...the opposite of what is occurring today.

The multicultural paradigm has robbed us of our identity. It's no wonder we've been rendered impotent in the ideological realm of our struggle against Islam. Perhaps as the civilizational schism intensifies, the Western world will be compelled by its own struggle for survival to rediscover its roots.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 19, 2005 1:39 PM

"Somewhere in history there must be a defining moment where the West ...must’ve agreed to the Dhimmi role..."

I think there have been two moments:

1) the increasing self-criticism and self-doubt of the West probably going back to Luther's Reformation (16th century), but really beginning in earnest in the 18th century and then further picking up steam (just in time for the broad application of the steam engine) in the 19th century

2) the above moment dovetailed with (and in a sense eventually caused) the epochal dismantling after World War II of Western Colonialism -- a vast social/economic/political/legal/military/intellectual/cultural/philosophical/religious structure. That structure was perceived (in terms of that growing self-criticism and self-doubt) as shameful and symptomatic of the supposed "disease" of the West.

Islam was a significant part of that structure of Western Colonialism (though the West left certain important pockets -- like the infernal wastes of Arabia where the heart of Islam burns -- uncolonized), and Islam is non-Western. And of course, before Western Colonialism, we perpetrated the horrible evil Crusades against those peaceful enlightened "settlers" in the Holy Land. All this goes a long way toward the peculiar but energetic whitewashing of Islam we see all around us. (Add to the mix the geological accident of oil on Muslim lands + anti-Semitism + the establishment of Israel, shake and stir vigorously...) Paying these quasi-crypto-Jizya payments we do is analogous to (on a grotesquely magnified scale) giving African-Americans their "forty acres and a mule" in order to appease our guilt and shame.

That the actual historical facts about Islam (and Western Colonialism in general) seem to point to an opposite interpretation will have little effect as long as the West persists in its strange behavior and mentality of simultaneously being greater and more wonderful than any civilization has ever been in history, while at the same time excoriating and ridiculing itself for being the most evil in history.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 19, 2005 1:41 PM

Cornelius: "Let the Shiites and Sunnis slaughter one another while the West rolleth merrily along. Except that fratricidal bloodletting is never interminable; someone usually wins. Removing the Western presence from the equation means and end to the ability of the West to effect outcomes."

Cornelius, look at how the billions we have spent on these Islamic garbagepits over the past 40 years yielded more hatred of the US, corruption, dictatorships, more extreme Islam. If trying to 'influence' the Islamic world though jizy has failed, why give them a dime? I say let them rot.

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 19, 2005 1:51 PM

DR Pepper,

Interesting how it was during the "bad old days" of colonialism that religious freedom reached its apex in the Muslim world.

John,

I understand your point, but I still maintain that if we walk away from the Muslim world and ignore the ascendency of the most fanatical elements, the likelihood of a rapidly (and rabidly) intensified global terrorism is almost assured.

Unlike the rantings of liberals who talk about root causes and advocate "draining the swamp" of outstanding issues that supposedly produce terrorism, I hope we are all in agreement that Islamic theology is the principle source of Muslim terrorism. Even if the leadership of every Muslim country in the world is with us in this war, terrorism will persist because of the theological exhortations to violence in the Quran and the Ahadith.

But it is only with the resources of the state sponsor (e.g. Iran, Syria) or through the chaos of the failed state (Gaza, Somalia and even Pakistan to an extent) that terrorism is effectively organized, financed and facilitated.

Walking away from Afghanistan and Iraq would almost certainly result in either 2 new failed states or given time, two new state sponsors. Another 9-11 directed from either sanctuary and we'd just be re-invading.

Nope...let's do the right thing and leave these countries with stable, viable governments intact.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 19, 2005 2:33 PM

Cornelius:

For what little it's worth, I'm with you on this and so is the leader of Syria's reform opposition party.

Excerpt from a recent translation by MEMRI of an interview conducted by the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, Farid Al-Ghadri says the following about the invasion of Iraq:

Q: "You recently visited Iraq. Can you shed light upon the goals of that visit, and does it herald the recurrence of the Iraqi scenario in Syria, and the toppling of the regime by force?"

Al-Ghadri: "The role that the U.S. played in Iraq is a positive one. It liberated Iraqis and their neighbors from the Ba'ath regime, and began to spread democracy... In the future, Iraq will play a tremendous role in accelerating the democratic changes in neighboring countries, and particularly in Syria, and it will have a pioneering role that will surpass that of the U.S.

"We in the Reform Party of Syria believe that strengthening ties with influential people and politicians in the new Iraq, who believe in a pioneering role for Iraq in the Arab region, will benefit not only Iraq, but also the 300 million Arab citizens who are awaiting democracy. Everyone, not only the Syrians, is interested in containing the evil of the Syrian Ba'ath regime. The Syrian regime is nurturing and marketing terrorism, and by so doing it is undermining the stability of the entire region...

"As for toppling the regime by force, we are a non-violent democratic movement, and we do not aim to act violently, even for the highest goals. We act transparently and clearly. The school of thought that calls to respond to the regime with violence and to oust it with violence has not yet arrived, [but] this does not prevent its developing in the future, if the regime lasts for a long time. Nobody can predict whether the option of violence will be imposed upon us or not..."

He also has interesting things to say about relations with Israel:

Question: "What do you think about the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, and are the Shaba' Farms Syrian or Lebanese? In this context, do you accept American pressure on Hizbullah?

Al-Ghadri: "The Syrian-Israeli conflict has clear characteristics of a dispute over Syrian soil – the Golan Heights and the Shaba' Farms, according to the U.N. documents. We are not claiming that the solution to our problem must be dependent upon a solution to the disputes of the Khmer Rouge and the Tamil. We support a separation between the disputes, and a peaceful solution, out of an assumption that resolving any dispute through wars will not lead to results. The Syrian army, which has become a tool in the service of the home and estates of the Syrian officers, and which is equipped with rusty Soviet weapons that have always been directed towards the Syrians [themselves], must act sensibly and rationally. We in Syria need peace more than the Israelis do...

Read the whole piece:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD98605

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 19, 2005 2:47 PM

"let's do the right thing and leave these countries with stable, viable governments intact."
--- from a posting above

Egypt has a stable, viable government. Saudi Arabia has a stable, viable government. So does Morocco. So does Algeria. So does Kuwait. So does Tunisia. Sudan's government is extremely stable, now that it has gotten away with mass murder in the south, and again in Darfur, in the full light of the mass media. Saudi Arabia has a wonderfully stable government ruled by a single family that has by now tens of thousands of princelings to uphold it. So does... well, you get the idea. Stable, viable. So what?

Why are we still in Iraq? The weapons, yes. In 2003. And 2004. And even part of 2005. But that search and destroy stuff is all over. Whatever weapons caches there were have been identified and destroyed or seized or judged not necessary to seize and destroy. Whatever arms projects were on hold, but able to be resumed at a moment's notice, have been disrupted, the scientists themselves -- or many of them -- scattered.

Why are we there? To win friends? We can't win friends. Not with hospitals, nor roads nor water-treatment plants. We can have a few corrupt contractors smile at us, and tell us how well they think of us, as they pocket still more of the billions they have more or less absconded with, being paid over and over again for the same unfinished or shabbily-exeucted work. But friends?

What would or could happen that would make Iraq a nation-state that would somehow limit the power of Islam, when the now-dominate Shi'a do not want to limit Islam even as much as it had been limited, for raisons d'etat, under Saddam Hussein?

The government cannot talk about this in any coherent way, because it is itself entirely incoherent in its policy, and so must be vague about the whole thing, referring to that non-existent supposedly universal "yearning for freedom," based on a misunderstanding of why people voted in January, and in what spirit, and also ignoring, with this maddening and idiotic phrase the "war on terror" (that makes anyone who repeats it appear immediately stupid) the whole matter of instruments of Jihad other than terror, including Da'wa and demographic conquest, which are the two most pressing matters in Western Europe.

Why anyone would wish to forego the opportunity of weakening and demoralizing Islam, by not allowing the natural fissures so obvious within Iraq to widen further, and instead remaining to heal or seal up these fissures, is a mystery -- until one realizes, with horror, that there is still no real understanding at the top of the nature of Islam, of the instruments of Jihad, of the thousand ways in which Muhammad's remark that "war is deception" has been, and continues to be, adhered to with such fidelity by the -- Faithful.

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2005 2:55 PM

Cornelius: 'Even if the leadership of every Muslim country in the world is with us in this war..'

But none of them are. Oh sure, some pretend and go along, but their heart is owned by Islam and they want to someday have Islam, and only Islam, rule the world. Bad Muslims who pretend to be friends of Infidels are Good Muslims. Bad Muslims who really want to friends of Infidels are Bad Muslims, and they are only temporary. Either way, the Infidels lose.

Islam's natural state is Jihad, conciliation and equality with Infidels is anathema to Islam. Those 'bad' Muslims who say that is their goal are lying as a Good Muslim should.

Can we get Islam back into a weak stage of Jihad, where it is not openly killing Infidels by the thousands? Sure. But it will be only temporary, and during the time, the Muslims will continue to immigrate to America and all other Western infidel countries, infiltrate the university, the government, corporations, our primary school textbooks busily rewriting the history of Islam and improving its image, fighting for religious hate speech laws and all those other discreet jihad. They know the final jihad by the sword may not even be needed, or if needed, they will be there behind enemy lines sowing confusion, deceiving the Infidels, and assisting the global jihad.

Bush can have his democracies in the caliphate. It doesn't matter. At best, we will weaken jihad, but it will only be temporary.

1400 years of jihad proves this.

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 19, 2005 3:59 PM

Egypt, for all the anti-Americanism in its press, quietly cooperates with US anti-terror efforts. Tunisia is a bastion of secularism in the Muslim world where the head scarf is almost non-existent in the major cities. The government of Algeria is in its own life-and-death struggle with the jihadis and is a steadfast supporter of the USA. Morocco, while it exports its population to Spain, nonetheless is very cooperative in global anti-terror efforts.

None of these countries is a perfect ally. But they are worlds apart from the Afganistan of the Taliban. To Hugh, it seems that all Muslim countries are innately adversarial and their respective policies vis-a-vis extremism and vis-a-vis the West are incosequential.

9-11 was plotted, planned and financed from training camps in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government. Today, those camps no longer exist and those who operate them are on the run. To suggest that it is irrelevant which faction of Muslims control this or that government in the Middle-East is just flight from reality.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using schismatic fissures in the Muslim world to advance the security of the West. Exploiting the Sunni-Shia estrangement might be a valuable tool in isolating Iran as it defies the international community by developing nuclear weapons.

But to employ such a strategy indiscriminately would be foolish. Encouraging Shiite-Sunni enmity in Iraq in the hopes of watching the country descend into the hell of civil war will not serve the West. It will only leave the field to the anti-West; Iran and its proxies vs Zarqawi.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 19, 2005 4:05 PM

To Cornelius's objections I would add that Islam for centuries -- before its Sunni/Shia schism and after -- has been a roilingly unstable mess of internecine fissures and clashes; and that this apparently inherent nature of Islam did little to stymie it from being a threat and an evil to countless millions of non-Muslims over the centuries. Indeed, it seems that the internecine fissures offer many-splendored ways for Muslims to practice violence -- on each other; think of urban criminal gangs: they more or less actively encourage internecine violence in order to toughen themselves.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 19, 2005 4:33 PM

DrPepper:'think of urban criminal gangs: they more or less actively encourage internecine violence in order to toughen themselves.'

And the US tries to stop all these internecine conflicts and showers money on them trying to placate the warring factions. That is current US policy. How stupid is that? The point is the jizya and nation building hasn't worked for 1400 years. How about trying something really different? Like cutting off all funds, like not trying to stop them from killing each other, and stopping all Muslim immigation to the US. The financial costs to us are less - no jizya, less need for internal security, reduced taqiyya to confuse us, force the Muslims to reform or starve/die/murder/whatever.

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 19, 2005 5:18 PM

Perhaps the poster above who thinks we should stick with remaining in Iraq could answer a few questions.

Question #1.

How much money does he think should be spent on this effort, and can he conceive of another use, a more effective use, of that money in other ways, to weaken Islam?

For example, is he prepared to spend another $300 billion on top of the $300 billion that has been spent? Is there any amount beyond which he would regard it as a waste or rather misallocation of resources? Would he consider the possibility that, say, $200 billion of the $300 billion already spent has been squandered, and might better have been spent on alternative energy projects, including nuclear plants, solar collectors, wind farms, and so on, in order to do achieve the most important goal -- taking away the OPEC-supplied wherewithal that makes the Jihad, in its manifestations all over the world, possible?

#2. What would for him constitute "victory" in Iraq so that we might leave? What would it look like? Would it be a unified nation-state, where the Kurds give up all hope of an independent country? Why would that change in Kurdish expectations be good thing for Infidels, and a bad thing for Islam? Would such a state be one in which the Sunnis and Shi'a, somewhat begrudgingly, nonetheless share in the government, and have a unified foreign policy, which would be simply a less aggressive and less violent version of what went before, though of course much more friendly to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and no longer any kind of threat to Saudi Arabia. Is that a victory for Infidels, and a great loss for Islam? Why?

#3. If the Americans remain for another year or two, what effect will this have, no matter what the ultimate political dispensation in Iraq, to the morale of those who do, or do not, sign up for the Reserves and the National Guard? Does it matter? If it doesn't matter that both parts of the citizen army are shrinking, and attracting less capable recruits by lowering standards, does this matter? Does the quality of the army matter, and do repeated tours of duty in Iraq lead to a rise in morale -- as those returning troops see what wonders have been achieved, thanks to their previous and renewed efforts, or is there rather a different feeling about Iraq, and consequently about those who insist that this policy is correct, that the "war on terror" needs to be fought here, and we need to do something that hasn't yet been achieved anywhere among the countries of the Arab League -- that is to say, a decent polity, that treats women and non-Muslims in a way that we would regard as appropriate.

#4. If the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project is based on Iraq as a model, how likely is that all the Sunni Arab states will be well-pleased with a Shi'a-dominated Iraq, and how likely is it, therefore, that Iraq really will be a model for anything? And why was not Kemalist Turkey, which for 80 years was the model of a Muslim state that constrained Islam, not a model for any other Muslm state, except possibly, and briefly, in the 1930s, for Afghanistan? Could it be that this theory of creating a model does not accord with reality?

#5. If you think that the power of Islam, and the menace of Islam, is not likely to recede anytime soon, and indeed through demographic conquest could well succeed in neutralizing Europe, and if Da'wa and demographic trends continue, Europe will be islamized, will be dominated by Muslims, even where they do not form an absolute majority, within the next several decades, and certainly by 2060 -- then why do you not agree that the attention lavished on Iraq actually gets in the way from turning our attention to educating our own population and other Infidels about Islam, however obliquely this may at first have to be done, and then renewing ties to those in Europe most likely to oppose, rather than appease, Muslim demands within Europe which do not let up, whcih are constant, which are various, and which make clear that Muslims there do not regard themseelves as in Europe on sufferance, but by right, that in the end the Infidels will have to yield, that in the end the lands of those Infidels will come to be dominated by Islam, and by Muslims, as if of course, from their point of view, only right and just, and those who oppose this in any way can be attacked, can be killed, for acting in a way that limits Islam and is therefore a clear act of aggression.

#6. Why do you think it is that Bin Laden has spoken of the economic damage inflicted on the United States in Iraq and in the security measures it must take, and why is this emphasis on damaging our economy not made more of by people in the American government? Have they failed to notice, failed to understand, or is it just something that doesn't quite fit their policy in Iraq?

#7. Have you ever considered that the people who run our government, and set policy, knew as little about Islam as most of us did a few years ago, and that they have not been permitted the leisure since to study it, study its teachings, study its attitutdes, study the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, study the doctrine of naskh, study the Hadith and the Sira (i.e., not limit themselves to the Qur'an), and that, therefore, they may have been ill-informed about Islam when they invaded Iraq, and all the reverses and developments since that have been a succession of surprises would not have been sur since can easily be explained, and would not have surprised at all, if they had only learned about Islam and, come to think of it, about Iraq as well.

#8. Does it bother you a little, a lot, not at all, that the Jihad goes on forever, but the attention span, and the enthusiasm, of Americans as well as other Infidels is limited, and the constant drain in Iraq, the worry over Iraq, the misallocation of every kind of resource, is having an obvious effect on civilian morale and determination, as a result of this squandering, when one needs to husband resources.

Replies can be posted below.

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2005 5:53 PM

I have had similat mr ffelings about funding the Jihad. I posted this on Fjordmans site yesterday after reading Times article.

From the Times

About half of all Muslims are economically inactive (52%). That is higher than any other religious group.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785953_4,00.html

One can assume, that a further 30% have just one wage earner. As muslim families are very large, a single wage earner will find it hard to support all. They will need to supplement this by getting considerable benefits from the state. Thus at a minimum, some 80% of the muslim population subsists on welfare benefits.

Assuming that each muslim is given some £10,000 in cash, housing benefits and other such, we have a figure of £20bn, that the muslim community costs Britain, i.e., if one estimates the muslim population in Britain at 2m. This figure does not take into account free education, maternal benefits, ante- and post-natal care, security at airports and train stations. Muslims also figure to a large extent in crime and in prisons. It is difficult to make an estimate here.

A considerable amount of this money to muslims from the British taxpayer, finds its way to finance the Jihad. The same scenario must hold in all European states that have a considerable muslim population.

So here we are. We have given economic shelter and refuge to the most lazy bunch of people on earth, who think it is their right that the Kaffir support the mummin. And as it is also their religious obligation take part in, and fund the Jihad, we are in the ridiculous position of sheltering and feeding a population that is hell bent on destroying us.

Islam's people, from the very outset, were nothing but a collective to gain plunder and loot at the expense of other people's work. In the past, it was conducted by war, conquest and then pillage. Now it is conducted by immigration (invasion), begging or crime. Meanwhile muslim nations, are given huge loans (aid), which we and they know, will never be repaid.

Thus, from a purely economic point of view, Islam seems to be a collective of people who live by the ethos of "beg, borrow or steal".

So why do we, the capitalist countries, who do not believe in offering anyone a free lunch, subsidise the most lazy yet aggressive bunch of poeple on God's planet, who are bent on subverting our democratic system.

The nub is, how has it come about, that the natural progression of the most advanced civilisation on earth is towards stupidity?

Posted by: DP111 at September 19, 2005 6:05 PM

I agree that Hugh's proposal is preferrable to Bush's idealism. Better than either one would have been to string up Saddam, within one hour of his having been yanked out of the spider-hole, from one of the lamp-posts his efficient government kept electrically working, and while he swayed there, to trample our muddy American boots through every mosque and urban edifice to root out weapons and extremists and destroy both unceremoniously, then to leave. We could have done this in 6 months, tops.

I don't think Islam could ever be fissure-free, no matter what we did; and that the continue threat of Islam is not from a possibly fissure-free Islam, but rather from what it has always been, a fissure-ridden Islam. The reallocation of resources in Hugh's proposal is wise; I just wouldn't make such a big deal of the fissures. Fissures keep Islam brimming with energy & hatred & fighting skills & that psychotic cacophony that rings between their ears from sunup prayers to sundown; they don't weaken Islam -- except relative to a chimerically unified Islam that never has been and never will be.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 19, 2005 6:09 PM

OK Hugh, I'll take a stab at it...

1) I conceed I don't know whether the decision to remove Saddam was a mistake; history's verdict has yet to be rendered. But now that we're in the thick of it, we have to acknowledge that the nature of the enemy we're fighting has changed; from a secular, megalomaniacal despot, we are now at war with a fanatical Islamist insurgency that is largely an extension of the movement that attacked us on 9-11.

Yes I'm concerned about the costs of the War. But I happen to be of the opinion that this is not an open-ended commitment and that as the institutions of the Iraqi state continue to develop, America's sacrifice in blood and money will decline. I also feel that the middle of a war is not necessarily the ideal moment to be getting austere and spendthrift.

2) "Victory" in Iraq would first and foremost be a government and that does not support Islamist terror and is not in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Secondly, a peaceful co-existence of Sunni, Shia and Kurd in a Democratic polity would be considered a significant triumph. There are obviously additional ancillary factors, but these two are the most important.

3) Yes, I too am concerned about unfulfilled recruitment goals in the Army and National Guard. But I also think we should acknowledge that with the possible exception of the National Guard units, by all accounts our soldiers in Iraq are highly motivated, believe in their mission and are gaining invaluable experience in counter-insurgency techniques.

4) Just as many Sunnis around the world were inspired to violence by Khomeini's Shia revolution in Iran, so might Muslims throughout the world and particularly fellow Arabs in the Middle East look to Iraq's developing Democracy (presuming we have the staying power to see it consolidated) and say "why not here?"

5) Our involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with our inability to engage in an honest public discourse about Islamic intolerance. It is a cultural phenomenon rooted in our worship of the gods of multiculturalism that renders us deaf, dumb and blind. It's called political correctness and it was prevalent long before Iraq.

6) No question that Bin Ladin is well aware that our military and diplomatic strength is an extension of our economic power...and that he is indeed trying to sap us of our economic strength. If our involvement was escalating, one might truly have to consider the ramifications of expenditure on our national well-being. But our force levels are static and - though I could be wrong - I think we will slowly start drawing down our forces beginning next year. I think it would be a tragic mistake to abandon a strategic objective because of bean-counting, particularly when doing so might cost us many times over in the future if we are attacked from entities operating out of an Iraq we abandoned.

7) I don't know the extent to which our policymakers understand Islam. Judging by their public pronouncements, probably not much. Of course, we have to allow for political considerations in our interpretations. Additionally, knowing Islam is only part of the equation. Human nature doesn't just stop at the borders of Dar ul Islam.

8) Yes, Iraq has been a distraction. But even without it, our attention span would still be short. In the end, the argument comes down to whether or not Western security would be enhanced by a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose arguments could be made both ways. In my opinion, it's a no-brainer; delivering these two countries to our enemies on a silver platter would be the height of folly.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 19, 2005 7:32 PM

I hope you are right, and me, Hugh and others are wrong. Our treasury is under tremendous distress. Our President hasn't seen a spending bill he doesn't like. While fighting over there, our borders over here are wide open. Our universities are packed to the gills with Muslim apologist agents and American Benedict Arnolds like Khaled Abou el Fadl, Nasr and Esposito. They are swarming this administration and doing a damn good job of buggering the White House (Bush and his Dhimwit Rice), Congress, FBI, CIA, Defense and so on. Islamists are looking at timeliness to attack. A backbreaking attack. I couldn't think of a better time to attack, and I think they think that too.

Here's hoping we can take it all - deficit, natural disasters, Iraq, Iran, and a terrorist attack, and not fall into a severe recession with galloping inflation. Of course, the world would fall into a recession as well probably, but world economic concerns are not on the Islamist's repercussion list at all.

We need a Teddy Roosevelt, and we got a what? Who would you compare Bush to? Kennedy? He was a war president in a war that went badly and was questioned? FDR? I don't think so. FDR read books AND understood them. President Bush, what books on Islam do you think he has read? Oh let me guess. Islam The Straight Path by John Esposito, or that other fraud Karen Armstrong'sHoly War: the Crusades and their Impact on Civilization Today or Islam: A short History. So insightful, such liars.

Perhaps that is what it will take to wakeup America to the dangers within and outside of borders. A tragic loss of life, but what number will it take? 50,000? 100,000?

Thanks for a very stimulating discussion. I know we can all agree we love America and want this Administration to get it right. But I am very concerned about the advice they receive, or the actions they have taken based on that advice.

Oh by the way, here's a tidbit about John Esposito's book Islam the Straight Path. He never uses the word Infidel the entire book. This is the trash that is recommended reading for the spintops in Washington.

John Sobieski, PI
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 19, 2005 8:22 PM

3) Regarding the brow furrowing over the stamina, quality, morale, etc. of the military and the naval services, I'd like to add a point. It is longwinded, and mildly off-topic.

From a historical perspective of, say, 3,000 years, the Iraq war was not well-conceived (though in 2003, I couldn't have guessed why). Rather than wading, hip-deep, through Islam in Iraq, the regiments there would be far better employed fortifying the frontiers of civilization, staunching the flow of the Jihad. Take your pick: the Philippine Islands; the Caucasus; the Sudan; the Indian coast of Africa--maybe the ban lieues of Paris.

So Iraq may be The Wrong War.

Regardless, while our betters make their slow way to a working understanding of Islam, and therefore of a true grasp of the dynamic in the Middle East--and from thence perhaps even to a logical geo-strategic policy--the Wrong War is also a very Real War. (And, learned scoffing about the "honey pot" analogy aside, the gunfighters over there are stacking Jihadists and other assorted criminal detritus of Dar al Islam by the hundreds and thousands.)

Time was, Americans didn't complain that Wrong Wars were hurting morale or readiness. In the old days, Americans joined up to Fight Wrong Wars, because their neighbors and brothers were over there, slugging through it, and a heartier generation of American men couldn't stomach not carrying a share of the burden, even if that burden was a ruck sack full of (!) The Wrong Policy.

So if you don't like the grinding effect the Wrong War is having on the Army or the Marines, or if you indulge in cocktail party dismay at the raggedy state of the National Guard, there's an off-the-shelf solution your grandfather would recognize:

Join.

Posted by: Mad_Jack at September 19, 2005 9:30 PM

I myself would have no problem joining, but I am 50 and they would not accept me. I never joined the military when I was young and I regret that.

Posted by: John Sobieski at September 19, 2005 10:59 PM

Why, if this is the Wrong War, and if military force is not the main instrument of the Jihad, nor the main instrument to limit the spread, and reduce the menace, of Islam (military force is not the main matter in reversing the islamization of Europe -- changing Infidel attitudes is more important, explaining what Islam is all about is important, undoing mental inhibitions and clearing up confusions is more) signing up to go to Iraq does not make sense.

And perhaps some of us who have our views of the war in Iraq have acquired some of our information about it from those who have served there -- and if it is they who share or confirm our views, should we insist that others Join Up when the war itslef, at this point, makes little sense? The enlistment and re-enlistment rates are telling a story: we have been there. We saw. We know. We are not impressed with the Offical Version of what will happen in Iraq, or about how much the Iraqis love freedom, of why this is continually described so misleadingly as a "war on terror."

Surely the officers who are leaving the army, even if they do so quietly, are telling us something. What could that something be?

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2005 11:12 PM

Like it or not the global economy is dependent upon the uninterrupted flow of Mideast oil. Even if Islam did not exist the USA would have an overarching strategic interest in preventing the existence of a Gulf hegemon. Just look at a map of the region and Iraq sticks out as the single most important piece of geography for 1,000 miles in any direction. Double that value because Iraq is accessible from the Mediterranean (with a slight Syrian inconvenience) and because it borders both Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two other most likely hegemons.

A US neutral government in Irag is the minimum acceptable condition under any circumstance. The ideal is a US friendly central government with enough military capability to present a perceived threat to its neighbors. US military bases in Iraq that keep Iran and Saudi Arabia within range of land based fighter-bombers is icing on the cake. Pushing back jihad is a complicating factor in Iraq but not even close to being the most important justification for the current campaign.

I think it's short sighted to view and value the US presence in Iraq only in terms of its impact on the GWOT or whether or not the Iraq constitution draws inspiration from Sharia. I believe the proper calculus is whether or not US presence advances or retards the prospects of the USA and its European beneficiaries staying on the downstream end of the pipeline. In those terms the Sunni/Shia rupture is a very good thing because it provides complications to Islam/jihad becoming a unifying ideology that could lead to an oil-based Caliphate.

Posted by: Peter Boston at September 20, 2005 3:50 AM

I have been saying that the shiites and shias should be allowed to go after one another for a long time now. It is the right thing to do.
To do otherwise as some suggest would be to insult their prophet who said that there would be 73 islamic sects of which only 1 would survive.

There is also the matter of the Afghan-Paki border the treaty having expired in 1992. Meanwhile, the Pathans do not want to be ruled by Punjabis in Pakistan while the Baluchis want freedom.

I nearly forgot. The shiites of Saudi Arabia too are restless. After all what right have the sunnis in saudi arabia to keep all the tourist money from muslim pilgrims. No fair.

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 20, 2005 4:16 AM

It goes without saying that the Wrong War makes Little Sense. This does not excuse a man from the duty to share the danger with his fellow citizens. The officers leaving may be saying, "We've carried the weight faithfully--care to take a turn?"

Posted by: Mad_Jack at September 20, 2005 7:02 AM

I doubt that that is what they are saying. The best thing conceivable for the army is for those who give it orders would begin to learn, try to learn, make the attempt to learn, about both Iraq, and about Islam, and why the latter is not merely, or mainly, a problem limited to a small group, but to those whom every defector from Islam, every apostate from Islam, every ex-Muslim, keeps warning us (spend a few minutes reading the testimony of ex-Muslims at www.faithfreedom.org, about the attitudes that Islam inculcates) are not tangential but central to Islam.

The fantastic corruption in Iraq, the absence of any sense -- from those smiling, affable, then whining, and completely crooked Iraqi contractors, whom American officers sometimes do not correctly size up, or do so only later, or do so but don't care because dispensing cash makes their lives and those of their men serving in the area easier and safer-- of a sense of "Iraqi" identity and of imroving "IRaq," but instead are motivated by the desire to help, in descending order, themselves, their immediate families, their extended families, their tribes, and sometimes, but only sometimes, those who share the same ethnic or sectarian identity -- sooner or later, the American officers and men, even if they continue to parrot with ever-less conviction the party line, realize that they are now on a Fool's Errand which no one can quite explain, and it would be better to extricate themselves from the Tarbaby sooner rather than later.

They do not need to know all about Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira to realize this. They may not know, but the more aware among them will begin to study, and realize, that the islamization of Europe is a threat to them in California and Kansas and Maine, and they will figure out that the business in Iraq is a delusion and a diversion.

And some of them, crudely possibly, will wish to leave the Iraqis to fight it out for themselves. Not all will consider that in the grand scheme of things, a Sunni-Shi'a split, permanently open in the midst of the Land of the Two Rivers, and helping to cause further Sunni-Shi'a trouble and communal hostility -- in Pakistan, in the eastern (Hasa) province of Saudi Arabia, in Bahrain, in Yemen (almost equally dividied), and elsewhere, is very much in the interests of Infidels, as much in their interest as was thta Iran-Iraq War that from the Infidel point of view, should have gone on forever.

As for this "Uncle Sam" appeal to It's Your Term -- well, some families have already given at the office, if you know what I mean, and have no intention of giving more. Not least because those who squander men and money remain too lazy, too timid, and too stupid to even begin to make the right noises about leaving Iraq, or understanding why that makes sense, why that would do more to achieve what they should wish to achieve (weakening Islam) than remaining. That they would blithely follow a false path, just because that is the one, out of ignorance and initial panic after the 9/11/2001 attacks, that they chose, and have not allowed themselves to study Islam, to figure things out, to calmly plot a little more like chess-masters and a little less like defiant schoolboys ("Bring it on") -- well, this is intolerable.

Posted by: Hugh at September 20, 2005 8:34 AM

All true.

And yet the fighting and the danger remain, no matter how willfully ignorant our leaders or how Wrong The War. And our reaction is not measured in families. It is measured in men, one by one, each standing or staying seated as his turn comes, each deciding if he is willing to to take a spot in the Phalanx.

If we don't have enough men who will stand alongside their brothers for no other reason than that their brothers are standing, we're too weak to beat back the Jihad in the first place.

Posted by: Mad_Jack at September 20, 2005 9:15 AM