Iraq Is Just Test Of Will For America (Mark Steyn Slams Baker Study Group "Realism" Alert)

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/03/2006 | Mark Steyn

[jim35]

Mark Steyn is a genius, and as usual his analysis is spot-on, but hey... leave the Doobie Brothers alone. They rock.

[livius]

We must turn rational Islam against this jihad

That is actually a key point of Bush's plan, and I think is the point that has weakened everything else. First of all, there is no such thing as "rational Islam." Islam is fundamentally anti-rational from a religious/philosophical point of view, and based on such aggressive world-political goals from a practical point of view, that there is really nothing that can be done except to regard it as a whole. Within that, one can perhaps appeal to men of good will who for one reason or another do not share the views of their religion; but that's an individual matter and not something we can build policy on. Furthermore, Islamic society is so oppressive that men of good will find it hard to do anything but keep their mouths shut.

Country after country (Britain, France, Russia, etc.) has become embroiled in Islam precisely by trying to "fix" it in various ME societies in which those countries have had influence. Supporting one or another Islamic group because we perceive it to be less of a threat to us, in comparison to another Islamic group, is the very thing that sinks us deeper and deeper into their dangerous world. Furthermore, it actually ends up by stoking their grudges against each other and giving us what they perceive to be another justified cause against us. We have to treat them the way we treat any enemy, that is, without extravagant cruelty or viciousness. But we have to remember that the enemy is Islam; not necessarily every person within it, but that we must stand up to it, stop its advance, and discourage it at every turn, militarily or otherwise, or it will perceive our tolerance as weakness and simply scoff at us first and overrun us second.

If the grip of Islam is weakened by our opposition, the men of good will within it will have more of a chance. But only if their leaders and countries are rendered powerless first.

[OldFriend]

A large segment of our population will be happy to see America lose this war on terror. They'd be so happy to say I told you so! It's all about proving themselves right than protecting our country.

All the dems want the money spent on the WOT given over to social programs. Remember free health care, free college education, blah blah blah.

Add our very own talk show hosts who demanded that the President do their bidding and who are now happily saying I told you so.....and you see how we got to this dangerous point in time.

The President has two years to get this situation under better control. Our enemies are watching, and hoping the cut and run crowd wins, because that means they win.

[nathanbedford]

The implications of your foundational thesis, that Islam is inherently closed to rationality, is unsettling in the extreme-but that does not make any less likely to be true. It is unsettling because it means that we must prevail against an inscrutable alien enemy without allies. We both concede that the aggressive Islam is maniacal, suicidal, and fanatic. The question is, is there a part of Islam which will say to itself, "this jihad is not just going to kill the infidels, it is going to kill us as well." If you are right in your pessimistic assessment of Islam, we will end up as Fortress America with Europe turning its face against us and our blue states undermining us from within. In those extreme circumstances, the terrorist might not even need to blow up American cities to prevail.

Heretofore we have had to make allies of parts of Islam for oil and this was unavoidable and even noble because it furthered our national interests. Hence, oil has made us choose sides even if we did not want to. Our support of Israel also places us in the position in which we are hostile to much of Islam. I did not see now how we can extricate ourselves from this relationship and this practical reality means that it will be even harder to divide and conquer- which is an infinitely preferable strategy to your call to confront all Islam. Those who support Israel at any price no doubt would support your view.

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and we cannot afford to make enemies of all of them. Until it is demonstrated beyond doubt that all Islam is the enemy, it would be strategic suicide to turn the whole of the Muslim world against us.

[TomGuy]

Sounds like the Baker boys sent out this banner cry:

HALP US, JON CARRY. WE R STUK ON THIS IRAK STUDY GRUP.

[Paladin2]

It's not too late to stir up trouble in Iran's Kurdistan.

[Stallone]

Had Bush had the will to destroy the enemy with extreme prejudice, not only would the Republicans respect Bush more, but the enemy would too.

The enemy - both foreign and domestic (aka Democrats).

Caving in to the NYTimes, Al Sadr, etc. and trying to run post-war Iraq like FEMA was Bush's biggest mistake.

[xowboy]

"It's all about proving themselves right than protecting our country"


Bingo!

[hnj_00]

Stallone.....glad someone gets it!!!!

the US needs a Sherman/Patton leader to win..... not a Westmoreland/Wesley Clark to fight to a tie!!!!!

if the war would have been fought as a war...this would have been all over a long time ago and iran would have backed down on the world stage.

muzzies do not repsect life/property/civility, etc.
they only respect strength/power and the ability to destroy an enemy....all of the qualiities the US demonstrated they have lost!!!!

[RegulatorCountry]

''F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.''

Maybe I'm suffering some sort of odd memory lapse here, but I don't recall voting for James Baker.

[ohhhh]

"Iraq Study Group"

HEE, HEE. Lestists one and all.

[maica]

I'm changing my tagline:

For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- or, at any rate, no will.

[elhombrelibre]

Ping to you, Alouete.

I think the best thing about this Steyn article is its reminder of the Baker line about the peace process and Jews. Steyn writes this of Baker: "James Baker's most celebrated soundbite on the Middle East ''peace process'': ''F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway.''" There is a lot of wisdom in this article, but that insight into Baker and his plan says all we need to know about this man. By the way, last night the Sunnis in Anbar Province were reported to have killed 55 al Qaeda terrorists. I wonder if Baker even considered a potential success.

[Steel Wolf]

Asymmetrical warfare works against armies of occupation but these tactics do not work against 21st-century Blitzkrieg, American-style. I fear that the American military will engage in another Vietnam style soul-searching and draw the wrong conclusion, that military force does not work at all in the war against terrorism.

The U.S. military, while unmatched at conventional warfare, is not structured physically, mentally, or spiritually for counterinsurgency operations. Despite our experiences in Iraq, the concept is still so alien to how the military operates, we really haven't adapted at all to it. Aside from better convoy and react-to-IED SOPs, the military as an organization hasn't learned a lot from Iraq. The chaos in Iraq feels weird and aberrant; not something Soldiers should be involved in.

That's a problem.

The military bureaucracy is completely unwilling or unable to change. While this is good insofar as it preserves our main strength, unparalleled conventional superiority, it's not helping our current national security interests. What may be needed is for SOCOM itself to become a fully fledged branch of the U.S. military.

There will always be a place for the U.S. Army, but, just as the Army Air Corps matured into it's own branch, modern warfare may require another such evolution. SOF forces need representation at the highest levels, and enough brass to make their points carry weight. They're the tip of the spear in counterinsurgency heavy, media age warfare, not tank divisions and fighter wings. It's time to recognize that, and give them a seat at the big table.

[ßuddaßudd]

You are not alone....

[Gritty]

We should never have wound up hunkered down in the Green Zone. If there has to be a Green Zone, it should be on the Syrian side of the border.

Has Steyn nailed it, or what?

The smell of American capitulation is in the air and the enemy (foreign and domestic) is in full Victory Mode. It's not too late to salvage this thing, but it will take a genuine sea change in our Politically Correct view of the World and our mortal enemies.

For the sake of the truth-in-advertising trial lawyers, we should rename the Iraq Blue Ribbon Commission the Iraq White Flag Commission.

[USS Alaska]

There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and we cannot afford to make enemies of all of them. Until it is demonstrated beyond doubt that all Islam is the enemy, it would be strategic suicide to turn the whole of the Muslim world against us.

Why not, they have made the USA their enemy? Start by nuking tehran and damascus. Announce that any reprisal of any size will result in the immeadiate destruction of medina, then mecca. Give all iraqi groups 24 hours to lay down all arms, if not, withdraw all US troops, and bomb {not nuke} bag-dead. Continue until terrorists all quit or all are dead. Extreme? Sure. We don't have the stomach to fight them the way they are fighting us.

[hershey]

Steyn's right, and Test America's well underway. We see a group of Muslims testing airport security and then suing when they're kicked off the plane. Just the beginning. The dems will blame GW when another attack occurs here...or anywhere else for that matter. The Baker Commission is sickening. On the home front...the local Benedictine Abbey...priests deliver non-PC homilies naming names (Muslims have been attacking Christianity for thousands of years, this is just the latest...)and calling for prayers for 'Our President'.

[Prodigal Son]

I enjoyed reading your post.

Ok. So what do you propose we do?

Second, you wrote:

I wanted forward bases in the Mideast from which to strike at Syria and Iran if intimidation alone did not work. I wanted us to get all our hands on the oil fields to deprive Muslim terrorists of petrodollars with which to buy weapons of mass destruction....

...Not only was I wrong but the result has been calamitous and every one of the "strategic" reasons for waging war in Iraq have been stood on its head.

You say you wanted forward bases in order to strike Iran and Syria. Fair enough, so do I. But later you say this strategic reason has been stood on its head.

How so? We haven't even tried it yet. Iraq was never 'the' problem. It was a part of the problem but 'the' problem is in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Why do you no longer want to strike outwards towards the more dangerous countries in the Middle East?

[nathanbedford]

You have defined the problem that absolutely must be solved and I don't know how we're going to do it. Rumsfeld could not do it and I can think of no better man to call on to turn the Pentagon upside down and seek real answers to hard questions. With two years left, Gates is coming in already a lame duck and will not have a chance to make any omelettes much less break a few eggs.