The fighting in Iraq has flared up again and most of the people getting killed appear to be Islamists, which is just fine by me. I cannot but wonder if the Islamists thought that if they just kept on slugging away, the Brits and US would just fold up and slink off, leaving them to impose an theocratic ‘paradise’ on Iraq. The fact that Moqtada al-Sadr is offering a return to a truce is both a good sign and an excellent reason to do nothing of the sort but rather escalate efforts to kill him and his supporters.
I suspect that is indeed what is going to happens and moreover I think that the US and UK governments will stay the course regardless of who wins the elections in the USA. Seeing Iraq ‘go Islamic’ would be too much even for the dismal Kerry to want to have happen on his watch. Likewise for the Tory party in Britain, should they somehow miraculously contrive to defeat Blair at some point in the future. Come to think of it, that is yet another reason not to bother voting next time: the hard decisions have already been made and the course is now set. The politics become even easier if another Al-Qaeda ‘leaker’ like September 11th gets through on either side of the North Atlantic.
The equally dismal Bush already did the heavy lifting in Afghanistan and Iraq and now it is just a case of taking on targets of opportunity. As for the Brits, I doubt any future Tory government would be any better or worse regarding the on-going hollowing out of Britain’s fading military capabilities, so no real choices are on offer there either.
The West, well the Anglosphere bits at least, will continue to oppose Islamists like Al-Qaeda for the foreseeable future regardless of the supine predilections of the Guardian, Independent and New York Times reading classes and it does not much matter whose face is on the portraits in the US and UK embassies.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“The fact that Moqtada al-Sadr is offering a return to a truce is both a good sign and an excellent reason to do nothing of the sort but rather escalate efforts to kill him and his supporters.”
Funny you should say that. I was just watching Newsnight and had voiced exactly the same sentiments.
It’s high time this latterday Guru Maharaji-with-attitutude was slapped down. And hard.
What is it with fat, young, religious maniac con artists that make people want to throw away their lives for them?
Yes, I rather noticed this too – plus one of the highest spiritual leaders of his variant of Islam is unfortunately in London recieving ‘urgent medical attention.’ I seem to further recall that this specific individual preaches peace and an end to armed rebellion.
Odd that. And at such a crucial time… So, Sadr is going to have no such assistant quelling the young fighters, and the Coalition forces don’t really want to stick around for a truce either, they want it over with.
He’s a dead/captured man this time next weekend.
That’s my bet anyway!
I seriously doubt that Kerry would do anything other than look for the fastest way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. His record is one of unrelieved support for the enemies of freedom (with the possible exception of the four months he spent in Vietnam.)
General Giap even claimed that the Communits would not have been able to win without the support of the group Kerry Founded.
Don’t fool yourselves a win for Kerry will be a victory for the Islamic terrorists the same as the victory of Zapatero was.
The “big picture” in the ME region is Iran. I remember reading an article quoting a White House communication to Blair on this very point, buit can’t find it now of course ;-P.
I think there will be differences as to how the candidates on either side of the Atlantic will handle Iran. Reasonable people can disagree of course whether containment or confrontation is the way to go, but I think the choice is quite significant. (I’m leaning towards confrontation, for the record, but that is not the point of this comment).
PDH: Seeing Iraq ‘go Islamic’ would be too much even for the dismal Kerry to want to have happen on his watch.
Too true. Carter’s firm touch kept the Shah in power and prevented Iran from becoming a theocracy. This is why Iran remains one of America’s strongest allies in the Middle East today.
One of the things I liked about George Bush back in 2000 was his support for a less interventionist foreign policy – specifically in the middle east.
Mr Bush may not have suggested any domestic program he wanted to abolish or even cut, or any regulation he wanted to get rid of (stupidly I still had hopes of him in domestic policy – I convinced myself that he was just keeping quiet), but at least he would get the United States a bit further away from the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Then 9/11 came alone and everything changed.
I suppose it was inevitable that it would change. Whoever was President of the United States would have (most likely) had to go to war with various groups of Muslims for who knowns how long.
And certainly honour dictates that the United States can not cut off aid to Israel after the people who wanted the aid cut off have killed thousands of Americans. And even if there was no Israel, America might still have to fight various Muslims – after all even Jefferson had to send the Marines to North Africa and Islam and the West have been at war (on and off) since the 7th century A.D.
But I still find the situation depressing.
As for the “positive” aims of the war. Well I am not interested in spreading socialdemocracy (for the “Neo Conservatives” are really L.B.J. style social democrats) to Iraq or Afghanistan – even if I believed it was possible to do so (which I do not).
On the Shah of Iran – well perhaps of he had not taken Western advice (on price controls – turning traders against him, on land “reform” – turning land lords against him, and on big prestige projects – shoving the peasants in to government “White Revolution” complexes) he (or his son) might be in power today.
I broadly agree with your assessment Perry, but I really am uncertain about Kerry. So far he comes across as a bit of an arrogant liberal of the “Taxachusset” political class, and it is unclear how resolute he would be as a leader. His record in the Senate hardly suggests a hawkish disposition.
BTW, the papers today are reporting that one of bin Laden’s top UK operatives has been caught.
To Paul: if you don’t believe it possible to export democracy to the middle east, do you seriously think we should withdraw and let the Islamists take over? Anyway, at the risk of inviting instant boredom what exactly are your reasons for thinking democracy is not possible in Iraq?
Kerry looks and talks as a model 60ies hippie, full of “feel good” crap, and no clue about nothing (except marrying the right person). I wouldn’t trust him not only with leadership in the WOT, I wouldn’t trust him to give me the time of the day.
Seeing Iraq ‘go Islamic’ would be too much even for the dismal Kerry to want to have happen on his watch.
Sure, he wouldn’t Want it, but would he do anything about it?
Gents, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Kerry to get tough. Now that we’re into the general election, he is running on the platform, I shit you not, of fighting a “more sensitive war on terror.” Either that comment is a startling lack of discipline and he is letting us know his true thoughts, or it is a carefully honed message, well thought out and signifying how he truly feels. I think it is the latter becasue he is now “running toward the middle” – trying to appeal to centrist voters. That means that he thinks 60% or so of the country is against confronting Islamofascism.
So the choice for us in the states, is between “we’ll be kinder and gentler and get the Islamofascists to stop hating us, by doing what they tell us to”, or Dubya’s “we’re going to hunt them down.” It is actually a stark choice.
In very plain language, that means that if John Kerry takes office at noon on January 21, the United States will run like scalded cats away from confrontations with Islamofascists by 12:30 that afternoon. Kerry’s whole life has been spent advancing the notion of a pacifist multi-lateralism enforced through a supra-national governing body, and he said in his 1997 book that war and military response should never be undertaken without unanimity in the international community. He faulted the 1990-91 Gulf War coalition, with its 100 or so members, as being a unilateral effort. Funny, but the Egyptians and Syrians who fought along side us didn’t see it that way… but I digress. Do you see where Kerry is probably headed with this stuff? ICC, Kyoto, here we come…
Kerry is still a 60’s left wing anti-war agitator at heart. If you are expecting him to lead the west in this war on Islamofascism, you will be sadly disappointed. On the other hand, as free marketers, we should try to find the bright side – our mortuarial business should pick up substantially in coming years under Mr. Kerry’s leadership.
Wrong war gentlemen.
Shift your focus. The election in America likely will be decided by another war. Vietnam.
The issue is white hot.
Go visit Instapundit or Roger L. Simon for links.
If you want to get ahead of the curve read about Kerry and Winter Soldier and Dewey Canyon.
=====================
BTW if our military is to be believed we lost 2 soldiers to the insurgent’s 300 +/-. This is an astounding kill ratio. It is no wonder they are asking for a truce.
It can’t help their morale to lose 10% of their forces in a few days in order to kill 2 of our soldiers. Such loss rates make units ineffective. Hence the call for truce.
Here is a linky on the Swift boat thing:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/
Here is how some ex-US Military think; this is link rich:
http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html
BTW the Swift Boat Book is #1 on Amazon and is not yet released.
Jaako –
You’re right about Iran, check out this soldier’s account of a battle in Mosul with approximately 100 Iranian backed Al Qaeda fighters.
Hopefully, when Kerry gets in office (and I say “when” because I think he’s going to win), he’ll see this sort of intel and decide that we can’t cut and run.
Telling that Daniel, a Kerry supporter, believes his current policy is cut and run. Which was Kerry’s Vietnam policy. Which led to the slaughter of millions.
Be interesting to see if Kerry can sell it.
In any case Kerry doesn’t want to deal with the uncertainties of this war. He wants to deal with the certainties of Vietnam. I don’t see how he can pull it off.
He has acknowledged consorting with the enemy as a US Naval Officer. Every promise he made to Congress about the future the communists planned for Vietnam was a lie. I believed him then. I’m smoked today. Still. Not for the lies. For the lack of an apology. For the lack of remorse.
Perry,
I must strongly disagree with your thesis, though I hope you are right about the UK.
Senator Kerry and members of a likely cabinet still see terrorism as a law enforcement problem; President Bush sees it as a military problem.
We’ve tried both in the states. The ’93 Trade Center bombing, the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack were diverted to law enforcement. Nothing was accomplished in eight years. Nine-11 drew a military response. Two tyrannical regimes have been toppled. Intelligence gathered has thwarted other attacks, and quite a few of my country’s enemies are dead or incarcerated.
November matters. Big time.
M Simon-
I’m absolutely NOT a Kerry supporter. I can’t stand him, but I think he’s going to win. However, as much as I dislike him, I get the sense that he’s a decent man – despite his political phoniness – and that even he’ll get the point that the stakes in Iraq are too high to cut and run. In some ways he may have an easier time doing what needs to be done in Iraq because – like Nixon – he can say that he didn’t start the war, but he can’t lose it. Don’t know if people will buy it considering he voted for it in the first place, but it’s possible.
Well Dan, you know what they say. Wish in one hand, crap in the other, and check out which one fills up first…
Mike asked various questions.
Well of course Britain tried to export democracy to Iraq – there was functioning Parliament and all the rest of it.
Not true democracy, but apart from a couple of Swiss Cantons and quite a number of New England townships where are you going to find full democracy in the world?
In 1958 the King and several members of the Royal Family of Iraq were murdered as were the Prime Minister and various members of the government and Parliament (etc).
The Prime Minister had his penis cut off and was dragged behind his car through the streets in front of happy crowds.
The Islamic types had little to do with the above. At the time the main groups were Communists and Baathists (and military dictatorship types) – these groups sometimes worked together and sometimes raped and killed each other (just like now).
Under S.H. the Islamic crowd (actually there are several different sects – but that by the by) were not charge. Now they may come to be.
As for the Afgan thing. Hopefully the United States will capture or kill Mr O. (last seen heading off on his motorcycle) – but (sadly) the hard core Islamic types will just replace him with someone else.
I am told that O.B.L. may already been dead (although no body has been produced) – I hope so, but (again) the terrorists would simply replace him.
What is my solution to all this? Why do you assume there is a solution?
So what do you think about it now? That light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
I think that 25 million Iraqis just got to vote and the insurgents attempts to derail that proves their weakness. I think that more than two decades of Ba’athist mass murder is over and as miserable as the situation is now, it is an improvement on what was there before. In fact I think that supporters of the overthrown of Iraqi Ba’athism been pretty much vindicated. Do I think the situation in Iraq is ‘optimal’? No, of course not, but then all I ever expected was ‘better than before’ rather than perfect.
Do you think it is a bad thing that Saddam and his homicidal children are no longer in power? Personally I am delighted they are now either dead or in prison.