Many believe, as a poster recently implied here, that the “source” of the “flood of jihadis that has swept over the globe” is Iraq. But is that really true? Is Iraq really more of a “source” than Saudi Arabia, or the “Palestinian”-held territories, or Pakistan?
The “source” is not one place, one region. The “source” is a series of texts: Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. They can create jihadis in all the places, all the nations, all the societies of the globe, and within Western cities. They can create jihadis even in non-Muslim or ex-Muslim families. They can create jihadis out of lone individuals “refinding” their Islam in a student apartment complex in Chapel Hill, or in an engineer’s office in Portland. The texts — they’re the “source.”
How will keeping American troops in Iraq for years to come (at what incredible, hideous, unbelievable expense — a squandering of men, money, and materiel), help halt or reverse the islamization, through demography and Da’wa, of large parts of Western Europe? Is it inconceivable that in a decade France, Great Britain, and other countries will have their foreign policies totally in thrall to Muslim voters? Is it inconceivable that a few decades after that, the armories of our West European allies will be accessible to Muslims who will have actually been encouraged by Western governments to join the military and the police forces, in order to better “integrate” into Western societies — and that many will do, but not for the benign purposes assumed by those pushing them? And is it not possible, is it not already being seen, that there are grave threats that they might lay their hands on some of the weaponry that the Western Infidel states have acquired for their own use? In other words, rather than merely stealing nuclear plans, as A. Q. Khan did while “working” in laboratories in Germany and the Netherlands and brought them back for Pakistani production of bombs, Muslim citizens of Infidel lands can slowly infiltrate. And they are encouraged, in a sense, by Western governments to do so, as they smile, and smile. And at any point — we have no idea when — if they do not already feel keenly their loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya, then they may recover that loyalty. Something may trigger it, and we helpless, hapless, terminally trusting Western publics will realize only too late.
But many still want to stick it out for years in Iraq. You want to spend another trillion dollars there, instead of on energy projects at home to cut off the money weapon that is so essential to the worldwide Jihad?
No. That money needs to be better spent. Those American soldiers should not be getting in the way of Al-Qaeda killing those “Rafidite dogs” (as they call the Shi’a), nor of those Shi’a militia doing their own revenge killing, forcing Sunnis out of Baghdad. In the end it will be a standoff: the Sunnis will not be able to retake Baghdad or the Shi’a lands, and the Shi’a have no desire to take over Anbar Province, but will merely go off on their own, with the big prize of Baghdad.
And in the north, the Kurds and Arabs (of both kinds, but mainly the Sunnis) will no doubt go at it. And there, for geopolitical not sentimental reasons, there are ways for the Americans to aid the Kurds — and to extract a few promises. The Kurds should agree to protect the Christians, the Assyrians in the northern villages, giving them the means to protect themselves or guaranteeing their safety, if only in order to keep receiving American weaponry.
Google a few cut-and-runners, will you? Google the name “General Sir Michael Rose.” Google the name “Major General John Batiste.” Look at their faces, read what they say.
Their fury at the waste in Iraq is correct. Where they do go wrong — and it is understandable — is to use the word “defeat.” The Americans have not been “defeated” in Iraq. The only thing that has been “defeated” is the Bush Administration, with its absurd Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project (a phrase I notice Mustafa Akyol has now copied, in his Washington Times piece, in order to apply it to Turkey).
Now google “Jihad Watch” and “Hugh Fitzgerald” and “Victory” and “Iraq” and see what articles come up. And then see if, in truth, as one of them says, Victory Lies Shining Before Us.
But only if we get out. And this the Administration cannot admit. How, after such expense and squandering, can they do it? How can they admit they were wrong? They just can’t. Too much permanent egg on too many faces. Too many loyalists (see National Review, see My Weekly Standard, see see see) who have stood staunchly and idiotically in favor of whatever the Administration does in Iraq.
How do you define “victory” in Iraq? Here’s how I define it: an outcome which will weaken the Camp of Islam, by dividing and demoralizing forces within it, so that non-Muslims will no longer be as threatened as they are now by the Jihad. Do you think another trillion dollars, and remaining in Iraq to dodge enemies, now on this side, now on that, meanwhile preventing those enemies from inflicting too much harm on each other, is the way to go? Do you think keeping 150,000 hostages to potential Iranian retaliation, in case of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, makes sense?
What kind of “victory” in Iraq does the Administration now envision? How will a unified Iraq, a prosperous Iraq, help us resist the worldwide Jihad? In any case, neither is possible at this point unless we are prepared to keep it together with our army, and more tens or hundreds of billions in aid. I don’t want a single dollar more given to Iraq, not one more dollar to be siphoned off by those in various ministries, past masters at grand theft of American taxpayers’ money.
Don’t, please, merely parrot the party-line. Think this through. In other words, do what very few in Washington have managed to do, in the hectic vacancies of their meetings and schemings, over the past five years.