| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In an interview published in the Christian Science Monitor dated July 13, General Petraeus declares:
"If we pull out there will be greatly increased sectarian violence, humanitarian concerns.... You don't know what could happen in terms of dangerous conflicts, what could happen along the Kurdish/Shiite/Sunni fault lines, or how [Iraq's] neighbors will react."
What is wrong, from the point of view of the American and larger Infidel interests that are now engaged in a largely-unrecognized war without end, with "increased sectarian violence" in Iraq? What is wrong "in terms of…what could happen along the Kurdish/Shiite/Sunni fault line"? Why should it matter? Would we not find that the Camp of Islam would be weakened if Iraq dissolves into something like its original constituent parts, those three former Ottoman vilayets -- Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra (more picturesquely, Bassorah) -- roughly corresponding to the Kurdish, Shi'a, and Sunni areas at present, with the Christians possibly to find an American-sponsored haven in the existing Assyrian villages in the north in what would then be a completely autonomous, possibly independent, Kurdistan?
Sunnis inside and outside Iraq refuse to acquiesce in the new arrangement. They cannot conceivably accept the idea of permanent Shi'a dominance of fabled Baghdad, a place that is so important to their history-haunted view. Their view of the world depends so much on what happened, or rather what they think happened, more than a millennium ago. In that quasi-real quasi-mythological past, Baghdad was the first city of Islam for four hundred years (and the Abbasid Caliphate of Iraq, its capital first in Samarra and then in Baghdad, the most important in Arab history). It is impossible for the Sunnis to see the Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs" whom many Sunnis have always regarded as heretics, quasi-Muslims, in control in Baghdad. For many in Al Qaeda in Iraq, and as Al-Zarqawi clearly believed, the Shi'a are worse than regular Infidels because they are more treacherous.
And how can the Shi'a, on the receiving end everywhere of Sunni aggression, not least in modern Iraq, ever give up what they have gained? After all, when the Americans were inveigled into removing Saddam Hussein, it was Shi'a in exile who did the inveigling. Some of them were no doubt like Al-Maliki, deliberately deceiving the Americans about their intentions, as someone who knew Al-Maliki in Syrian exile said. Others, such as Kanan Makiya, no doubt were naïve. They were naive about the nature of their own countrymen and country, because in their Western and secularized and cossetted world they had forgotten what Islam, what societies and peoples suffused with Islam, are like. They actually did think there was hope for Iraq under benevolent American tutelage and sway.
It can't happen. And General Petraeus should be more than a mere "counter-insurgency expert." He should look outside the narrow confines of Anbar Province, with those tribes that are for turning, and outside Baghdad and the damned "surge," and think clearly. Bush doesn't. Rice doesn't. No one at the civilian top is doing so, which means that the generals must do so. They must begin to analyze and then question and then see right through the damn "mission" -- and realize that the best thing he can do, the best way to weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad, is to work for the immediate withdrawal ("immediate" will take months, in any case) of American forces, so that exactly those things he now deplores, because he now does not understand their value, will come to pass. But this requires General Petraeus to be more than he has so far been. He needs to remain unaffected by this or that local Iraqi, of the winning Gunga-Din variety, and think more coldly about this war. It is not a "long war," not a "war that will last several generations." Rather, it is a war that will last as long as Islam exists, with that central duty of Jihad, Jihad to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere and everywhere Muslims rule. This duty does not disappear, but sometimes subsides when Muslims are too weak. It always remains ready to be implemented, in whatever way is possible, at any time.
At the moment Muslim states cannot engage in outright warfare; they are too weak. The chosen and effective instruments of Jihad, along with the greatly-exaggerated "terrorism" that Bush seems to regard as the Enemy (the "war on terrorism"), are the Money Weapon (which pays for mosques, madrasas, influence of all kinds), campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. When there are not twenty million Muslims in Europe, but fifty million, or one hundred million, how easily will the people of Western Europe make their own domestic and foreign policies without fear of Muslim reaction? How easily do they do it even now? How easily will they resist Muslim demands for changes in their own legal and political institutions, and social arrangements? How easily do they do it even now? Nothing good can possibly happen if the peoples of Europe continue to admit Muslims, and continue to support, through Infidel-paid welfare systems, large Muslim families. Nothing good can come of allowing the Saudis and other rich Arabs to pour money in to pay for an ever-expanding number of giant mosques and madrasas -- and to subvert, through all kinds of bribery, various influential Westerners. That includes those who are supposed to study and instruct us about the nature of Islam.
These are the kind of things that General Petraeus may not realize in the hectic vacancy of daily trying to create an alliance here, a compromise there. Those temporary compromises and local victories mean, in the end, very little. For if they were to help fulfill the "mission," when that "mission" makes no sense, makes the opposite of sense, they would merely harm American interests by helping the Camp of Islam to avoid the kind of sectarian and ethnic strife that one should see not as damaging but as promoting the cause of the Infidels. When General Petraeus expresses worry about that "Sunni/Shia/Kurd fault line" and about what Iraq's "neighbors" may do, he simply alerts us to his failure to grasp the larger picture. And he is hardly alone. But he has gotten such a press, such a buildup, and is clearly more intelligent than Bush -- so this, yet one more sign of the limits of his understanding and therefore of his usefulness in the war of self-defense against the Jihad, dismays.
Posted by Hugh at July 15, 2007 7:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Dutch Minister for Residence, Neighbourhoods and Integration: We should support the fact that the Netherlands will become Islamic
From Dutch Concerns:
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The bad news from Holland
Dutch Concerns
by R. Hartmann
Quote:
"Unbelievable as it may seem, the Dutch 'Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie' (Residence, Neighbourhoods and Integration (I'm not making this up)), Ella Vogelaar, today has declared in an interview that The Netherlands will be Islamic at some point in the future. She feels that The Netherlands should adapt to Islam, and subsidise Islamic institutions. What will emerge, according to her, is a "Christian-Jewish-Islamic culture". As if Christianity and Judaism aren't 100% opposite to Islam's teachings."
http://dutchconcerns.blogspot.com/2007/07/bad-news-from-holland.html
Posted by: IceViking![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 15, 2007 7:22 AM
Leave Iraq Now, are you crazy?
We can not leave Iraq!!!
1) All roads start in Iraq.
2) All roads end in Iraq.
3) The Sun revolves around Iraq.
4) The moon revolves around Iraq.
5) The stars revolve around Iraq.
6) If the United States does not keep sufficient troop mass in Iraq, the orbital stability of the Earth will become unbalanced and all Muslim terrorists will slide into America.
(Iraqi-centric belief system)
Posted by: BlowHammed at July 15, 2007 7:34 AM
'Rafidite gods?'
How did that come about?
Last time I checked it was 'Rafidite Dogs'- did they mutate?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 15, 2007 7:46 AM
Kinda funny Iceviking since its the Netherlands that is allowing it to happen. Its not like its inevitable. The Netherlands still have a choice.
Posted by: Elric66 at July 15, 2007 7:47 AM
"Rafidite dogs" it is. The proofreader has been chastised.
Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2007 7:50 AM
From a story on July 13 in The Washington Post:
"Abu Sarhan [leader of a Sunni "insurgent" group] said that the leading Shiite parties in the government, including the Dawa party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with the Supreme Council and prominent Shiite militias, are beholden to Iran. The Iranians appeared to be of such grave concern to him not just because of the bloody history of war between the two countries, but also because of Iran's perceived intolerance toward Sunnis in general. He said his long-term political goal was to recapture the prominence that Sunnis had enjoyed under Hussein's government.
'The problem is that the Americans have a relationship with the slaves: Dawa, Badr Organization, the Mahdi Army are slaves to Iran,' he said...
He did not condemn the actions of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but he said there were ideological differences among insurgent groups.
'Al-Qaeda is more strict than the others in their way of thinking, in terms of applying religious rituals and behavior, and also the way of working. Al-Qaeda, for example, kills every Shiite, while the other factions kill only the Iranian spies or those who are members of militias,' he said...
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, recently described al-Qaeda in Iraq as 'public enemy number one.' And President Bush, during a speech July 4, cited the organization as the one group that attempts to 'cause enough chaos and confusion so America would leave.'
'We must defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq,' Bush said.
But Abu Sarhan described al-Qaeda in Iraq as one of "hundreds" of insurgent groups, some aligned and others in some degree of conflict, ranging from cells of about 10 people to groups with scores or hundreds of members.
'The American president insisting on fighting al-Qaeda, or saying that al-Qaeda is the problem in Iraq, is just like someone who is insisting on taking diabetes medicine while he has a cardiac problem,' he said, describing it as an "intentional" misdiagnosis. 'Any person in the position of the American president, who has drawn himself a certain path, would be very embarrassed to change that track and confess that he has been wrong. Unless he loves his people more than he loves himself. Only then could he confess his wrongdoing for the sake of his people.'...
But when the Americans do eventually leave, he said, 'the future [for Iraq] will be dim.'
'There will be a fierce civil war, a grinding civil war, because Iran will always be there, he said. 'But the Sunnis are ready for such a day.'..."
When the Americans leave, according to General Petraeus, "there will be greatly increased sectarian violence, humanitarian concerns.... You don't know what could happen in terms of dangerous conflicts, what could happen along the Kurdish/Shiite/Sunni fault lines, or how [Iraq's] neighbors will react."
And according to Abu Sarhan, a Sunni leader of one of the various groups, "There will be a fierce civil war, a grinding civil war, because Iran will always be there....But the Sunnis are ready for such a day."
The question abides: why should what they both predict be deplored? Why should we work to prevent it?
at July 15, 2007 8:45 AM
Hugh,
how would you respond to the following counter-argument:
The Arabs of the Middle East are reacting to the Iraq situation not as Muslims, but as Arabs. As Arabs, all they respect is a show of force. Osama bin Laden said it himself: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally like the strong horse."
Reuel Marc Gerecht, one of the neoconservatives who first argued for the Iraq War, says that what is at stake is America's "hayba"--reputation for awesomeness--that America lost in Vietnam. That what the Arabs (even Christian Arabs) respect is "hayba"--a force that is demonstrably indomitable.
Yes, Hugh, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might help splinter Islam eventually. But at the moment we withdraw, what the Arabs will see is an America that was defeated by Arab insurgents. And Arabs will glorify the insurgents and have contempt for America. In the short-term at least, that's not good.
at July 15, 2007 10:51 AM
Hugh,
how would you respond to the following counter-argument:
The Arabs of the Middle East are reacting to the Iraq situation not as Muslims, but as Arabs. As Arabs, all they respect is a show of force. Osama bin Laden said it himself: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally like the strong horse."
Reuel Marc Gerecht, one of the neoconservatives who first argued for the Iraq War, says that what is at stake is America's "hayba"--reputation for awesomeness--that America lost in Vietnam. That what the Arabs (even Christian Arabs) respect is "hayba"--a force that is demonstrably indomitable.
Yes, Hugh, a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might help splinter Islam eventually. But at the moment we withdraw, what the Arabs will see is an America that was defeated by Arab insurgents. And Arabs will glorify the insurgents and have contempt for America. In the short-term at least, that's not good.
at July 15, 2007 10:52 AM
One response to your proposition (which I am admittedly sympathetic to) would be the following:
Their assessment would be incorrect.
In other words, just because they believe something to be true doesn't make it true. If you were engaged in combat with an enemy while suffering from a flu, you would logically try to leave in order to recover and fight from a stronger position. Even if physically healthy, you might have a future ambush planned, and decide that your odds with the ambush would be superior to your odds at the moment. Your enemy might mistake your tactical assessment for weakness, but your enemy would be mistaken.
My concern for leaving Iraq is not so much the impact on the Arab street as it is for the American public. With our PC head-in-the-sand culture and media, what are the chances that the U.S. would even entertain military action in the next 20 years if the American public perceives retreat from Iraq to be a "loss."
I agree with a lot of what Hugh writes, and I am coming ever closer to his way of thinking. However, I do think that his analysis does not give sufficient weight to domestic political concerns.
What are the odds of mobilizing the American people for tougher actions (even merely tougher sanctions) against Iran in the context of an American withdraw from Iraq? The domestic political forces strengthened by such a withdawal (e.g. Pelosi, Reid, et al) will be perceived as victorious, making confrontation of Jihad all the more difficult.
Posted by: JSobieski at July 15, 2007 11:59 AM
from BlowHammed above:
"Leave Iraq Now, are you crazy?"
No.
But thanks for asking.
at July 15, 2007 12:28 PM
We need to distinguish between casualties that are Muslim extremist and Muslim civilian.
If Islamic extremists decide to kill each other I do not care, actually it weakens them them.
But we cannot claim the moral high ground if we applaud, say, the suicide bombings which hit Iraq almost every day. Almost all the victims are civilians who are not engaged in acts of terrorism.
Our acts of war will have to include some restraint if we claim to act on behalf of a superior civilization which is worth defending.
at July 15, 2007 12:44 PM
JSobieski says:
"what are the chances that the U.S. would even entertain military action in the next 20 years if the American public perceives retreat from Iraq to be a "loss." "
The public will only continue to "perceive" withdrawal (and yes, the term should be strategic WITHDRAWAL, NOT RETREAT, inasmuch as "retreat" connotes surrender) to be a loss as long as we allow our president to convince us that "we must win, we cannot fail becuase the terrorist will claim victory"
Just how many times have the American people heard Bush say this? He is the same person telling us all how peaceful Islam is. HE is the one that tries to convince us that withdrawal is failure. It is not. We won after Saddaam was toppled and we were satified WMDs were not a threat. We did not go into Iraq with the stated mission to fight Al Qaeda and all terrosrist who invited themselves in to take a shot at the great satan. He changed the mission. He is the one that created the fiction that leaving is a loss.
The very ignorance of the use of the words in the phrase "giving victory to the terrorist" shows his absolute lack of understanding of what he is dealing with.
from the Washington Post article:
"The American president insisting on fighting al-Qaeda, or saying that al-Qaeda is the problem in Iraq, is just like someone who is insisting on taking diabetes medicine while he has a cardiac problem,' he said, describing it as an "intentional" misdiagnosis.
Bush does not intend to mis-diagnose. He is ignorant. I believe the American people will agree to take the next steps needed once some leader steps up with enough courage to tell them they have have been misled by a very well intentioned but not-so-informed commander in chief.
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 15, 2007 1:01 PM
While I agree with his analysis, I think that Hugh, as well as many posters to this blog, misunderstands the legally prescribed role of the US military leadership.
The military leaders, including General Petraeus, do not determine what the mission is. Moreover, they may not do this.
Defining the mission is the exclusive domain of our civilian leadership. A military officer, no matter how high his rank, may only advise that civilian leadership, when asked, on the ability of the forces under his command to support a proposed mission, or a set of alternative proposed missions. He may not decide what the mission is, and he may not sit around devising missions. If any officer disagrees with the prescribed mission so much that he does not wish to support it, his only recourse is to resign. To try to change the mission, he must take off his uniform and make his influence felt through politics, academia, or punditry.
Of course, there is a little flexibility here and there. An officer might, for instance, be pulled from the line by the President and tapped to serve as a direct advisor in the While House, where he is somewhat more free to comment on such matters. But even there, the constraints on his behavior are pretty severe, unless he has a close personal relationship with the President himself.
As for the military mission in Iraq today, it is clear that all the Islamic groups and sects and tribes are now fighting for dominance, and will continue to fight each other for dominance when we leave, no matter how soon or late that is. We are never going to tame that society--our mission is going to fail. But what does dominance in Iraq mean, in a practical sense? Since Iraqis produce nothing of value (like any Muslim dominated society), this means the various Islamic groups are fighting over control of the oil supply.
Basically, and oddly, the only people in Iraq right now who are NOT fighting for the oil are the Americans.
To "win" in Iraq, Islam needs to "lose," very visibly and in a way that is obvious to all. Logically, then, the only way to "win" in such a visible manner is to permanently seize the oil wells and pump them dry. Those wells and infrastructure that cannot be seized and safely held should be destroyed. Those Muslims who cooperate with us, and help us protect the oil fields, can receive some of the "loot." The Kurds, for instance, could be given some wells for playing nice. But those Muslim groups and tribes who don't make nice, can either live quietly on dates and goat milk, or die for Allah while charging the barbed war perimeter--their choice.
at July 15, 2007 1:23 PM
My last pargraph should begin "For the US to win in Iraq, Islam needs to lose. . ."
Posted by: Stendec at July 15, 2007 1:29 PM
I agree with Stendec. It's not like the propagandistic Democrats allege: "It's all about the oil!!" (that is, oil was not the end all and be all of why the U.S. went to war) -- but who controls the oil is of considerable importance. The Kurds have control of approximately 17 percent of oil supplies. The Sunnis virtually none, the Shiites the remainder. Iraq is listed as the number 2 country in the world (in terms of oil reserves). The question becomes, would the U.S. gain or lose by having Iran gain control of much of Iraq's oil reserves? Oil could become a very potent weapon (in black-mail).
Posted by: J.S. at July 15, 2007 2:53 PM
Forgot this from the same post that I linked to above:
"She actually thought that Mohammed Bouyeri, Theo van Gogh's killer, was some sort of social worker who's ideas she found agreeable."
http://dutchconcerns.blogspot.com/2007/07/bad-news-from-holland.html
Posted by: IceViking at July 15, 2007 4:05 PM
Hugh,
I completely agree with your assessment, except for one small, but essential, part.
You wrote that the "Christians possibly to find an American-sponsored haven in the existing Assyrian villages in the north in what would then be a completely autonomous, possibly independent, Kurdistan?"
This will never work. The Kurds are the same people who have been gobbling up Assyrian land for 150 years. The Kurds were also the most viscous killers in the genocide of a century ago as well as the massacres of Assyrians in the 1930s and again in the 1950s. The only solution is an independent Assyria encompassing Mosul as well as all of Nineweh province and the surrounding areas.
This oil-rich, Aramaic speaking Assyrian Christian state will then be a haven for all Christians, Mandeans, Yezidis, Ismailis and the other non-Islamic peoples of Iraq. Yes this means population transfers and "ethnic cleansing" but that has already been happening for 150 years. As for being an "American-sponsored haven" no sane Assyrian would dare trust the US. Like the British before them, the Americans have already betrayed the Christians too many times.
Perhaps Russia could assume the role of guaranteeing Assyria's security and independence. There are already over a million Assyrians in Russia who have been integrated into Russian society since the time of Tsar Alexander I. Also, other than the Holy See, the only nation that consistently speaks up for the Assyrians is Russia. Assyrians also see how the US always sides with Muslims against Christian nations like Serbia. The Assyrians need friends they can count on.
at July 15, 2007 4:09 PM
This war has been a classic bait-and-switch. Bush told us we need to disarm Iraq of its WMD. Once that was proven to be a lie, wanted to sell us on 'liberation' and 'bringing democracy' to iraq.
What a bunch of bull!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 16, 2007 1:35 AM
Provoslavni is right. The Kurds are even more murderous than the turks. I follow German events and the Kurds are responsible for the vast majority of 'honor killings', rape and other severely violent crimes.
They're doing a great 'soft-sell' to the US masses re. the Kurds. yeah, so Saddam gassed them.
Understand that if the Kurds ahd the means to gas the Sunni or the shiites - or the Turks for that matter, they'd do it without hesitation.
So we see how nice these 'fellow moslems' are to each other.. God.. er alla.. knows what they have in store for us - if they ever get the means.
Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 16, 2007 1:41 AM
What IS curious about our war against globally-resurgent Islamic imperialism is that we seem to want to help them by helping Mulsims in Iraq and Afghanistan remain Muslims. Or worse, become even stricter Muslims.
Shouldn't our aim be to de-Muslify them?
(Since their being fervent Muslims IS the problem.)
Shouldn't our thoughtful military and political leaders be undermining the war suras in the Koran?
And undermining the model of the warlord Mohammd?
And striving to weaken Islam?
Where is our counter-intelligence services in all this?
Our philosophers of liberty?
Those who prefer human freedom to inhuman Submission?
Why are we trying to help Muslims remain Muslims?
When all it gains us are more stable regions from which a renewed and refreshed and better-equipped jihad can be launched?
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 16, 2007 2:59 AM
profitsbeard..
I wish my writing were as compelling as yours, and I am glad you wrote the above.
It's so damn logical that it makes me cry to think we have either a complete dunce or a complete traitor in the White House.
What makes things worse is.. THEY'RE ALL LIKE THIS!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at July 16, 2007 3:31 AM
Profitsbeard and Allahfanculo:
Our politicians in Washington are traitors, I think, on both sides of the aisle.
I used to think that our politicians were "merely" profoundly stupid, but lately I've been coming around to the theory that they have knowingly sold the American people down the river to some smiling Saudi prince or imam bearing a suitcase full of money.
Posted by: trojo at July 16, 2007 11:30 AM
Update:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/07/islam-is-part-of-our-culture.html
Posted by: IceViking at July 16, 2007 1:02 PM
"My concern for leaving Iraq is not so much the impact on the Arab street as it is for the American public. With our PC head-in-the-sand culture and media, what are the chances that the U.S. would even entertain military action in the next 20 years if the American public perceives retreat from Iraq to be a "loss." " from post above.
I agree with this sentiment. I listened today to some "political" expert (Democratic) who asked (in utter amazement) why any American would desire a victory over Iraqis in the current war? Such utter and unseemly arrogance! (I also listened to some idiocy from some "commentator" on CNN reading a viewer's "email to CNN" -- the writer of the email to CNN was aghast to think that Condi Rice, a female (!!), would be chosen to head up any "peace" exercise with Muslims. The writer alleged that Muslim males don't even eat their meals in the same room as females. But the writer's outrage was NOT addressed against these 7th century barbarians, but against Americans for being "so arrogant!!" Now that, for me, about sums up American Liberals/ Democrats, the Cindy Sheehan's, etc. What they want to see happen in Iraq -- the reason why they are ever so anxious to have American troops withdrawn is so that they can then celebrate -- yes, celebrate -- the DEFEAT of the United States of America in Iraq. That is what they want and hope for (and probably pary for). And that is why they want so dearly to be out of Iraq -- so that then, their dear Muslim brethren (whom they love so much) can trumpet their victory over "arrogant" America. And a victory for the forces of Islam it would be.
Posted by: J.S. at July 16, 2007 5:28 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)