Posted on 02/21/2006 12:22:16 PM PST by Dark Skies
As the situation in Iran grows more serious by the minute, American troops in Iraq now stand in the way of the only kind of advantage that can now be pulled from the tarbaby of Iraq. That advantage is the weakening of the global jihad through the exploitation of the sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) and ethnic (Arab-Kurd) divisions that have existed since virtually the beginning of Islam, but have been exacerbated recently by the Sunni Arab rule of modern Iraq, and particularly the Sunni Arab murderous rule of Saddam Hussein.
Getting out of Iraq now is the very best thing the Administration can do in order to ensure political support for dealing with Iran. It is also the best thing to do so that attention and resources can be turned to another important matter, the islamization of Western Europe through Da'wa and demographic conquest.
It is madness for the American troops to remain in Iraq. There they are now hostage to possible Iranian retaliation for any attack on Iran's nuclear project. That retaliation could come from Iran itself, which shares a long and porous border with Iraq, or it could come from Iranian agents already in Iraq working with local Shi'a such as Moqtada al-Sadr -– who is so obviously malevolent, with his ansar al-mahdi or Mahdi's Army. Or alternatively, the retaliation could come from other Shi'a groups. The Shi’a in general have been perfectly content to watch the Americans inflict casualties on the Sunnis and suffer casualties in return, all the while attempting to extract the last bit of aid, training, and equipment that the long-suffering American military can be persuaded to offer. Those American generals are apparently unwilling or unable to push Bush to drop his messianic notions of Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations. They have been relegated by Bush to letting him know only when "the Iraqis are ready for us to leave,” which is to say, when "the Iraqis can stand up so we can stand down." Oh my god.
Since when do foreigners tell us when they are "ready" to have us leave? We could be fighting the Sunnis on behalf of the Shi'a until the cows come home.
I have news for Bush, the news the generals apparently cannot bring themselves quite yet to deliver. There never will be a moment when a real army of "Iraq" which will contain, fighting side by side and loyal to each other, Sunni and Shi'a Arabs and Kurds. It just cannot be. Oh, here and there a special unit might exist, but even that unit's supposed "unity" and "loyalty to the idea of Iraq" could dissolve at the first real testing. But all this is brushed aside by the messianic impulse of Bush, and by his naivete about the virtues of "democracy" and even the ease with which this "democracy" can be transplanted in the stoniest and most unlikely soil. That stony soil for democracy’s growth is the soil of Islam, which teaches that legitimacy comes from Allah and the Shari'a, not from mere mortals casting their ballots.
Bush’s naivete is also on display in his laziness about the specific history of Iraq, and of Sunni-Shi'a hostility. It is not merely a product of the last few years or few decades. It goes back more than 1300 years, to the time of the four rightly-guided caliphs. Can no one -- no one? -- talk to Bush and explain this to him, and to Rice, and to the rest of them? Can they not be persuaded to put down their copies of John Esposito’s books even for a moment? Can't they understand the importance of the Sunni-Shi’a split? And can't they figure out why this split is not to be deplored, but rather to be exploited by Infidels?
The problem of Iran cannot be dealt with as long as the Americans are tied down -- tied down by their own inability to think through the whole menace of Islamic jihad, and to put aside memories of this or that charming and plausible Iraqi exile, or some touching individual they have run across in Iraq. Put that kind of thing out of your head. Think only about the welfare of Infidels. There are innocents in the Muslim world, but we are not in a position now to help them without further imperiling ourselves. Western civilization is menaced in a peculiarly complicated way, a way that involves the weakness of mind of Western man himself, who has forgotten what his own history and his own values are, or is willing, or many are wiling, to toss that legacy, those values, aside.
It has to happen soon. The misallocation of resources -- men, money materiel, attention -- is just too great.
Bush may not be up to it. He is obstinate, and apparently unable to recognize that all of his assumptions about Iraq were based on ignorance of Islam and ignorance of Iraq.
But let's hope.
AustinWillard and I said that, ages ago, when Iraq idea was first proposed.
I echoed Evelyn Waugh, who said that as a classless society could never be achieved, he was not willing to discuss theories of how to bring this about. As an invasion of Iraq to establish democracy is in the same league as a classless society.
That hit me as well.
I read Robert Spencer regularly, but don't always make it through Fitzgerald's stuff. Since this was featured by Spencer at Jihadwatch, I gathered Spencer was concurring with Fitzgerald here.
As I said upthread, I didn't know quite what to make of this article but I felt complelled to put it out there.
Thx for taking time to chew on it.
But darth - war, as you have just noted, is a matter of geography - borders, population etc. If Iran were to be entirely smashed up, power would pass to the Arab Gulf states and fundamentalist regimes such as those in Pakistan. These are not friends of the West.
After the theocracy is smashed the Persian people will be able to take back their government. Persia will again be a counterweight to the Arab countries and can help reform Islam into a religion that thrives in the modern world. I don't think its an accident that our foreign policy has concentrated on regime change in Iraq and Iran, two of the most educated and advanced countries in the muslim world.
Well if we don't know exactly what we are doing, let's do some brain storming.
It is essential to be true to our word to win this war. The American people and the moderate Muslims will remember that the Admin told them we would not be in Iraq one minute longer than we need to be.
To take that back now would do more to lose the long term war than anything else we could possibly do.
We need to leave Iraq as an allies and bust the myth that the US is an occupier.
The long term war, ironically, will be won by the liberals who can convince moderate Muslims that all they have been taught about the US is incorrect. That will take time. More military action will only reinforce what the Mullahs have been telling their people.
I realize the next question will be; What about the Iranian nukes?
We have the south flank, Europe can have the north. If they don't want to protect their own boarders, that's their problem.
Someone is creating propaganda to entice Americans to support hitting Iran militarily. Why? I don't think it is coming from this side of the pond.
I have also noticed a desperate attempt to blame America and Christians in general for the cartoon wars. I find that very odd. It of course has failed. Why?
Just some of my spaghetti observations for the week.
Your turn. :)
We have to start somewhere.
Just checking in at this point...will try to return with a serious response tomorrow.
"We cannot let these tools slip into the hands of tyrants and therefore tyrant must go the way of the dinosaur."
But tyrants aren't the problem. Unless they're suicidal.
It's small groups getting their hands on unsecured nuclear material for terrorist weapons that is the problem. States can be deterred, non-state actors cannot.
"War is about GEOGRAPHY. We now surround Iran on 3 sides with substantial military capability in Iraq and the Persian Gulf."
Our troops in the region are little more than targets for Iranian counterattack.
Tyrants monopolize power and a good rule of thumb Americans are familiar with is, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Corruption is the bane of civil society because corrupt actors are difficult to track and prosecute. Corrupt actors use familiar institutions against the public and this can be done even more effectively if such corruption is carried out under the guise of national or international sovereignty. [Recall oil for food]. Terrorism, like corruption is made more difficult to accomplish without the sponsorship of states.
You mentioned deterring non-state actors cannot be done. I disagree; it certainly can be done, both directly and indirectly. The act of deterring non-state actors is made easier by relieving non-state actors of their official state sponsors. Regardless, you’ll probably agree that there are unpleasant symptoms of deterring non-state actors, IE terrorists.
Symptom of deterring terrorism may include but are not limited to, inciting retaliatory terrorist violence, public sympathy for terrorists and the creation of new and more deadly terrorist tactics. Some look at these symptoms and say, “deterrence is worse than living with the disease”; while others ask, “can terrorism be cured in its entirety?”
In my opinion the answer to both is an unequivocal, NO! Terrorism is a disease that must be deterred by Americans while they simultaneously acknowledge that terrorism, as it is currently defined, cannot be cured. Look around… violence is a political tool! It always has been and I cannot imagine a world in which “fear of bodily harm” does not influence the public sphere to act politically.
The lessons of history make another point clear about political violence. As society has become more civil, the price for using violence to meet political and economic goals has gone up. This is particularly true for developed states, like the United States. The American Government, a government for the people --- by the people, is paying a massive toll in blood, treasure and reputation for resorting to violence to achieve regional peace and stability in the Middle East. In my opinion --- It is worth every drop, dime and slur!
Why? With our blood, treasure and reputation we are buying the future. It will be a future that you, I and the entire world can live with. Would we get there faster if we did it the way this author prescribes? I doubt it…
Eloquent! Powerful!
U.S. troops on patrol against guerillas can be hit by IEDs. U.S. troops in a conventional battle will wipe the bastards out in short order.
No doubt terrorism can be made more difficult to accomplish without state sponsorship. My point is that terrorism can also flourish without state sponsorship and that the removal of dictators and the installation of democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of terrorism. As you must know, the US has supported dictators in troubled regions when foreign policy required it in the past - for reasons of political stability. Similarly, we have encouraged and assisted the removal of democratically elected leaders when their policies threatened our interests.
I see no reason to believe that democracy and democracy alone represents a solution to the problem of terrorism, as the election of Hamas clearly demonstrates. Were democracy to magically appear overnight throughout the Middle East and Pakistan, for example, we would soon find ourselves dealing with hostile Islamist regimes with popular mandates. Terrorism would not be stopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.