We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
I’m in the midst of my nightly reading and this dialogue from Donald Rumsfeld on Jim Lehrer’s News Hour caught my attention:
Now, there’s another reason it’s a bad idea. If you go to Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had 300,000 troops in Afghanistan and they couldn’t do the job. We have 10,000 in there and it’s making steady progress. Why? Because we don’t want to occupy a country. The Soviets wanted to own Afghanistan.
We don’t want to own Afghanistan. We don’t want to own Iraq. We want to help them get on their feet and then move out. We do not want to put so many forces in there that we create a dependency on us and then have to stay. We want to keep creating an environment where they can take over their security.
Maybe our way of looking at things is catching on.
The second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is as good a time as any to take quick stock of progress in World War IV:
(1) Afghanistan. The Allies (America and its ad hoc coalition) have driven the Taliban from power and deprived the Islamic terror network of one of its primary bases. The Islamists still in Afghanistan are now on the defensive, and are focussing, apparently, on trying to regain control of one of the world’s poorest countries, rather than exporting their theology to other countries. Despite ongoing difficulties, this is a clear win for the West because Afghanistan is less of a threat now than it used to be.
(2) Iraq. Pretty much exactly the same analysis applies in Iraq. The Baathists are no longer funding any part of the Islamist terror network, and are no longer a potential source of WMD for the islamists. Based on current information, I would say that this is also a clear win for the West because Iraq is less of a threat now than it used to be. Ultimately, of course, Iraq still has miles to go, etc., but it certainly does not seem to be on course to be a net exporter of terror. Right now it is a net importer of terrorists, and that is fine be me – better to kill them in Iraq than in Iowa.
(3) International Islamist terror network. Clearly on the defensive and less capable than it was before 9/11. Many of its leaders or members are dead, in hiding and emasculated, or in prison. Many of its resources, including terrorist havens, are gone. Recent attacks have been directed, not against Western targets, but against Middle Eastern and South Pacific ones. Offhand, I can’t think of any theaters where radical Islamism is stronger now than it was before 9/11.
(4) Middle East. So far, it is hard to say that the Islamists have gained any ground even in the Middle East. Syria is going multi-party and has made some, admittedly not terribly significant, stand-downs in Lebanon. Arafat is isolated and his days certainly seem numbered. The Saudis have executed a number of their princes that had ties to al Qaeda, and seem to be going after al Qaeda with a little more credibility since it broke its promise not to operate in Saudi Arabia. Lots of fulminating and bitching about the Great Satan everywhere, of course, but that isn’t new and doesn’t really count on the debit side of the ledger. It is still early days, of course, but all told, I would say that the Middle East is certainly no more hostile to the US than it was, and in significant ways is less dangerous, if no more friendly, than it was.
(5) Diplomacy. The common complaint is that the US has sacrificed or damaged many good relationships in order to pursue its war. I think that this is complaint is overstated, at best. Rather, World War IV has tested relationships and revealed which of them were shallow and weak.
I am willing, on the whole, to say that the diplomatic front has been a break-even for the US. On the one hand, many erstwhile “allies” are more vocal in their criticism of us, and possibly even have withheld substantive aid that they might have offered a different diplomatic team. On the other, the UN has permanently devalued, the true colors of the transnational progressives have been revealed, and many of the other impediments to a new and much more functional international order have been weakened or cleared away.
(6) Homeland security. Well, we Americans may or may not be marginally safer from terrorist attacks on our own soil than we were before 9/11. Its hard to say; in spite of the obvious idiocy of most of the high-profile homeland security measures, we haven’t had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Measured against the baseline of 9/10/01, I think it is hard to say that we are much safer than we were. Measured against where we should be two years on, I would say that homeland security is a major disappointment.
But the war won’t be won or lost based on America’s homeland security. That is purely a damage control issue, because no matter how good the homeland security is, we will surely lose the war if we do not succeed with our “forward defense” of draining the Islamist swamps where terrorists breed.
The schwerpunkt of America’s offensive is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of those campaigns were crushing military and strategic victories for the US, victories that have not (yet) been frittered away. They may not turn into little Swedens, but there is really very little chance that either nation will return to being a terrorist haven bent on exporting mass murder to its enemies. That counts as victory in my book.
At this point in history, the Islamists cannot defeat America, but America can certainly lose the war through loss of will and resolution. So far, the will is there.
Here is today’s press release from an Iranian student group with ties to those inside Iran. I think you will appreciate it.
The 2nd anniversary of September 11th Tragedy and the Iranian Nation
SMCCDI (Public Statement)
September 11, 2003
Two years have passed since the “Tragedy of September 11th”. A tragedy resulting from an unprecedented terror attack on the US soil and which took thousands of innocent lives and left many grieving families behind.
Without the shadow of any doubt, this infamous attack was the true manifestation that fanatical Islamic Terrorism has no boundaries and is hell bent in uprooting all the advances achieved by the civilized World, replacing it with archaic beliefs along with an intolerant value system inherent in all overzealous religious sects.
September 11th occurred while the Iranians were commemorating their loved one’s massacre at the hands of the fascist-theological Islamic Republic regime. This is exactly why the Iranians, immediately felt in their bones the impact of this murderous act and sympathized with the Americans. Few hours later and in thousands, they took to the streets to support the wounded American Nation and to share its sorrow while undergoing the brutality of the regime’s shock troops. .
“America, America…. Condolences, Condolences!” and “Death to Taliban, whether in Kabul or Tehran” they chanted while holding their candle lights despite the brutal attacks of Hezbollahi thugs!!
Since then, Iranians have become more determined than ever to stand up against intolerance and tyranny as they saw the trueness of the unprecedented declaration of President George Bush on “War against Terror” and his revelation of the hideousness of religious fanaticism. They’ve regain hope by witnessing the overthrow first of the backwarded Taliban rulers in Afghanistan and then of the Iraq’s Bathist regime, two of the most notorious supporters and purveyors of global terrorism in contemporary international politics.
Without the shadow of any doubt, the Iranians, themselves the first victims of terrorism for nearly a quarter of a century, not only sympathize with the Americans, but they identify with them in this “Just war”. They’re are engaged in a daily battle to rid themselves of their monstrous regime known for being the “Mother of Islamist Terrorism” and a notorious member of the “Axis of Evil”.
More than ever, the struggling freedom loving Iranians are looking for the moral support of the Americans in their global quest to rid the world of this unholy, demonic menace. The Iranian people are in search of a democratic government separate from religious fanaticism, and a free and peaceful society. In pursuit of these goals they ask the American people to join with them in opposition to any reform or reformist movement within the Islamic republic, and to ask of their representative not to embrace or endorse any such sham reform in Iran, as they are nothing but an illusion and they do not represent the Iranian people.
The “Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran” while honoring all those who perished during the horrific September 11 attack and expressing once again its deepest sympathy with the families of the victims, declares that will do what ever is necessary to strengthen the bond and cooperation between the two great nations of Iran and America in the fight and struggle against Global Terrorism and Religious Fanatism.
It’s of this committee’s strongest believe that the Iranian and American peoples will emerge victorious in their noble mission of contributing to a safer and peaceful World!
September 11, 2003 (20th Shahrivar 1382)
The “Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran” (SMCCDI)
This news has been all over the place. I first found it here:
Saudi Arabia’s religious police have declared Barbie dolls a threat to morality, complaining that the revealing clothes of the “Jewish” toy – already banned in the kingdom – were offensive to Islam.
And God forbid anybody should be offensive.
A scientific opinion poll has been carried out in Iraq for the first time. The results are about what one should expect, given the situation. That is to say, the media image of the situation is pretty bogus. Iraqis by and large want the Coalition to stay just long enough for them to get their country standing on its’ own feet. A large percentage, especially among the majority Shiites, want no part of a religious state. Most Iraqis are fairly positive towards America and Americans but not uncritically so. The population appears to be very secular for that part of the world.
There appears very little danger any of our nightmare scenarios will happen. Baathists will be tried and punished. There seems little desire for amnesty towards the managers of 35 years of brutality in the Iraqi public’s heart. Osama is personna non-gratis by a super-majority. Iran is not their favoured model for their future, not even among the southern Shiites.
Iraq may not end up a democracy; but it will probably not end up a disaster. I think these people will sort themselves out just fine.
In a few years it will be a very friendly place for American and British tourists to visit.
I plan to be one of them.
In some previous discussions on failings of the American forces I received a firestorm of protest. I never backed down on my opinion that annoying decent Iraqi’s and shooting wildly is not a way to win hearts and minds.
I’m rather chuffed the Marines agree with me… and so do the 101st Airborne. Both have done magnificent jobs in their regions. They are largely unsung on the nightly news. Reporters ignore them because success does not fit the discourse they write within.
It is interesting to note the Marines running the Najaf region have not lost a soldier since May. [Note that all casualties are declining].
Marines give the CPA (“Can’t Provide Anything”) low marks, closely followed by the forces around Baghdad. I must admit the central region around Baghdad/Tikrit is where the most bad guys went to ground and is thus inherently more dangerous. The Army hasn’t bolloxed the job but I think the Marines would have done a better one.
So let the inter-service flame war begin!
I found the link at Instapundit and thought it well worth the attention of our readers.
Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds has linked to a fascinating paper on Orientalism. The paper, a debunking of Edward Said’s anti-Western/Eastern-victim diatribe, is to be found on the web site of the admirable Institute for the Secularisation of Islam.
Besides duking it out with an icon of the victimology crowd, Ibn Warraq also presents a fascinating history of the interactions of Europe and the Middle East. It is quite long but well worth the read.
Be sure to put the kettle on before you start!
Many in the blogosphere have said the al Qaeda hate us simply for what we are… free, wealthy and tolerant. Now we have confirmation from a top al Qaeda leader:
The author of “The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad” is Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Laden’s closest associates since the early ’90s. A Saudi citizen also known by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad, he was killed in a gun battle with security forces in Riyadh last June.
Yussuf al-Ayyeri considers American democracy the last and greatest threat against Islam:
This form of “unbelief” persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the “unalterable laws” promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.
He is afraid the increasing wealth of a free society will breed a world in which young people won’t be willing to blow themselves to their heavenly virgins. The following paragraphs may well contain the explanation of the economic warfare going on in Iraq. It appears the al Qaeda goal isn’t just beating Americans. They must send Iraq back to the stone age. Iraqi’s must be left ignorant and starving:
The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to “make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad.” If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims “reluctant to die in martyrdom” in defense of their faith.
He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. “If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world,” Al-Ayyeri writes.
The Turkish government should beware. They are also on the menu:
The al Qaeda ideologist claims that the only Muslim country already affected by “the beginning of democratization” and thus in “mortal danger” is Turkey.
“Do we want what happened in Turkey to happen to all Muslim countries?” he asks. “Do we want Muslims to refuse taking part in jihad and submit to secularism, which is a Zionist-Crusader concoction?”
Like most fanatics, he does not understand history:
Al-Ayyeri says Iraq would become the graveyard of secular democracy, just as Afghanistan became the graveyard of communism. The idea is that the Americans, faced with mounting casualties in Iraq, will “just run away,” as did the Soviets in Afghanistan. This is because the Americans love this world and are concerned about nothing but their own comfort, while Muslims dream of the pleasures that martyrdom offers in paradise.
Al-Ayyeri is perhaps not aware Americans have fought fanatical suicide bombers before. Oh yes, we know all about this form of warfare. The absolute abhorance for it is part of American cultural history. We have an ingrained visceral hatred for those who would do it.
Three thousand five hundred Japanese Kamikazi pilots attacked American ships at the end of WWII with devastating effect. Japan’s remaining industry was churning out two man human torpedoes for the final battle. They were testing catapult ground launch of the manned Baka rocket bomb. The mainland population was preparing to fight to the end as they had on islands leading up to Japan: islands on which masses of civilians threw themselves off cliffs into the sea rather than surrender.
Soldiers died with hand grenades primed and ready underneath them. Surrendering prisoners approached American lines with explosives ready to go. The priests of the Bushido code called upon the people of Japan to die for the Emporer. They were preparing to do so. The invasion would have nearly wiped out the Japanese population. It would have taken years and cost the lives of a half million or more American soldiers. So we did the Indiana Jones thing… we nuked them.
We know how to solve this problem if it ever comes down to “end game” again. If there is still anyone out there who doesn’t understand the seriousness of the threat, please read this very final solution manifesto very carefully:
“As far as belief is concerned, the absolutely final version is represented by Islam, which “annuls all other religions and creeds.” Thus, Muslims can have only one goal: converting all humanity to Islam and “effacing the final traces of all other religions, creeds and ideologies.”
Did you just catch that whiff of smoke from the incinerators?
Many thanks to James Taranto’s daily Opinion Journal email newsletter for the heads up on this story.
It is common sense that you cannot possibly stop every terrorist attack. The terrorist choses the time and the place out of all possible times and places. They watch and probe for exactly the place and time where the opposing forces are not to be found.
Anyone who believes that any force, no matter how large and ruthless, can stop dedicated groups from blowing something up is simply a moron. All the defenders can do is take the losses stoicly while they drain the swamp, kill the croc’s and try their best not to create conditions conducive to breeding a new batch.
Not all terrorist attacks succeed. Against an aware opposing force many will fail. If the population is also against them… most can be stopped. Perhaps the recent mosque bombing was a wakeup call to the Iraqi populace. They can not sit complacently and expect someone to take care of them. “Let George do it” is something that just doesn’t work in a free society. Your liberty and your security are largely your own responsibility.
It is with interest I read of an attack thwarted by the Iraqi police. (Link via Glenn Reynolds.)
Victor Davis Hanson provides some insight into the relentless negativity regarding the current reconstruction of Iraqi society. It turns out that, when you get right down to it, turning Iraq into a free and prosperous nation would be bad for nearly every other regime on the globe, as well as a significant slice of the American political and chattering classes.
After dispensing with the obvious opponents of a free and prosperous Iraq – the Baathist bitter-enders and all the other nations of the Mideast – he moves on to more interesting prey – the UN, the Europeans, and the Democratic “loyal” opposition. Read the whole thing, of course, but his conclusion seems well-supported:
It is no wonder that we have almost no explicit voices of support. Most nations and institutions will see themselves as losers should we succeed. And the array of politicians, opportunists, and hedging pundits find pessimism and demoralization the safer gambit than disinterested reporting or even optimism — given the sheer scope of the challenge of transforming Afghanistan and Iraq from terrorist enclaves and rogue regimes into liberal and humane states.
What a sad commentary on the state of humanity at the dawn of the Third Millenium, that creating freedom and prosperity in a formerly oppressed nation should evoke such widespread opposition.
I don’t believe the popular line that attacks on Coalition troops in Iraq take place because the Iraqis are angry about lacking electricity, water and other services. That theory certainly doesn’t explain the dreadful bombing of a mosque a few hours ago.
But there’s no denying that when you are trying to win over a country, it doesn’t help if nothing bloody works.
This story from Stephen Pollard made me think that some loyal US bureaucrats might as well go out and slit a few of their own soldiers’ throats. In a hot country like Iraq with intermittent electricity supply and a dodgy phone system, mobile phones make a tremendous difference. They save time, inconvenience and sometimes lives. So here’s how the State Department has gone about getting this great aid to the restoration of normality up and running:
Compounding the impact of the US’ military overstretch on security has been the State Department’s crippling bureaucratic mindset. Rather than recognising the exceptional nature of the Iraqi situation, officials have insisted at every point in applying the full rigour of US health and safety requirements, licensing procedures and other sundry impediments to progress. Take the mobile phone network. The sensible solution would have been to pick the most able and cost-effective operator and let them get on with it. But instead, the decision was taken to go through a full competitive tendering process, which takes an inordinate amount of time. One day, however, people suddenly found their mobiles working; a network had decided, to immense acclaim, to ignore the process and, indeed, get on with it. They were swiftly shut down, encapsulating just why things have been moving so slowly in Iraq: beauraucracy ahead of common sense.
They had it! They had one of the prizes they should have been striving for actually in their hands – and they let it slip through their fingers.
In the first years of the last century Count Peter Stolypin raced against time to enrich the Russian people fast enough to stave off revolution. The race ended with his assassination in 1911. Tough luck, Russia. What an irony if Stolypin’s counterparts in modern Iraq survive the assassins who are undoubtedly after them – only to be defeated by regulation.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman gets it at least partially right with his latest column:
We are attracting all these opponents to Iraq because they understand this war is The Big One. They don’t believe their own propaganda. They know this is not a war for oil. They know this is a war over ideas and values and governance. They know this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
. . . .
In short, America’s opponents know just what’s at stake in the postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat America’s ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose to America there, lose everywhere.”
→ Continue reading: The big one
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
