Stop The Yaking and Crush The Terrorists

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDEyMmY0YTJkMzZjZGNiY2ZiMzE4NWIyNjliMjQ4MDQ=

Can We Talk?
Well, we can, but we shouldn’t.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

This is a war of will. If we lose it, the historians will marvel at how mulishly we resisted understanding the one thing we needed to understand in order to win. The enemy.

In Iraq, we’ve tried to fight the most civilized “light footprint” war of all time. We made sure everyone knew our beef was only with Saddam Hussein, as if he were a one-man militia — no Sunni Baathists supporting him, no Arab terrorists colluding, and no Shiite jihadists hating us just on principle.

No, our war was only with the regime. No need to fight the Iraqis. They, after all, were noble. They would flock to democracy if only they had the chance. And, once they hailed us as conquering heroes, their oil wealth would pay for the whole thing … just 400 billion American dollars ago.

This may be the biggest disconnect of all time between the American people and a war government.

In the wake of 9/11, the American people did not care about democratizing the Muslim world. Or, for that matter, about the Muslim world in general. They still don’t. They want Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors crushed. As for the aftermath, they want something stable that no longer threatens our interests; they care not a wit whether Baghdad’s new government looks like Teaneck’s.

To the contrary, Bush-administration officials — notwithstanding goo-gobs of evidence that terrorists have used the freedoms of Western democracies, including our own, the better to plot mass murder — have conned themselves into believing that democracy, not decisive force, is the key to conquering this enemy.

So deeply have they gulped the Kool-Aid that, to this day, they refuse to acknowledge what is plain to see: While only a small number of the world’s billion-plus Muslims (though a far larger number than we’d like to believe) is willing to commit acts of terrorism, a substantial percentage — meaning tens of millions — supports the terrorists’ anti-West, anti-democratic agenda.

Islamic countries, moreover, are not rejecting Western democracy because they haven’t experienced it. They reject it on principle. For them, the president’s euphonious rhetoric about democratic empowerment is offensive. They believe, sincerely, that authority to rule comes not from the people but from Allah; that there is no separation of religion and politics; that free people do not have authority to legislate contrary to Islamic law; that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and men to women; and that violent jihad is a duty whenever Muslims deem themselves under attack … no matter how speciously.

These people are not morons. They adhere to a highly developed belief system that is centuries old, wildly successful, and for which many are willing to die. They haven’t refused to democratize because the Federalist Papers are not yet out in Arabic. They decline because their leaders have freely chosen to decline. They see us as the mortal enemy of the life they believe Allah commands. Their demurral is wrong, but it is principled, not ignorant. And we insult them by suggesting otherwise.

Democratizing such cultures — in anything we would recognize as “democracy” — is the work of generations. It is a cultural phenomenon. It is not accomplished by elections and facile constitution writing … especially, constitutions that shun Madisonian democracy for the State Department’s preferred establishment of Islam and its adhesive sharia law as the state religion.

Elections, in fact, play to the strengths of Islamic terrorists. Jihadists are confident, intimidating, and rigorously disciplined. They are thus certain to thrive in the chaos of nascent “democracies.” Consequently, it should be unsurprising to anyone with a shred of common sense that terrorist organizations are ascendant in the new governments of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

So now comes James Baker’s Iraq Study Group, riding in on its bipartisan white horse to save the day. The democracy project having failed, this blue-ribbon panel’s solution is: Let’s talk.

Let’s talk with our enemies, Iran and Syria. Let’s talk with terror abettors as if they were good guys — just like us. As if they were just concerned neighbors trying to stop the bloodshed in Iraq … instead of the dons who’ve been commanding it all along.

Someone, please explain something to me: How does it follow that, because Islamic cultures reject democracy, we somehow need to talk to Iran and Syria?

What earthly logic that supports talking with these Islamic terrorists would not also support negotiating with al Qaeda — a demarche not even a Kennedy School grad would dare propose?

There’s none.

When I grew up in The Bronx, there were street gangs. You mostly stayed away from them, and, if you really had to, you fought with them. But I never remember anyone saying, “Gee, maybe if we just talk with them ...”

Nor do I remember, in two decades as a prosecutor, anyone saying, “Y’know, maybe if we just talk with these Mafia guys, we could achieve some kind of understanding ...”

Sitting down with evil legitimizes evil.
As a practical matter, all it accomplishes is to convey weakness. This spring — after trumpeting the Bush Doctrine’s “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” slogan for five years — Secretary of State Rice pathetically sought to bribe Iran out of its nuclear program with a menu of all carrots and no sticks … and certainly no demand that the mullahs stop fomenting terror. The result? They’re still laughing at us, even as they build their bombs, harbor al Qaeda operatives, and arm the militias killing American soldiers in Iraq.

While our rhetoric blathers that we’ll never let them have a nuke, our talk begs them, pretty-please, to stop building one. And our actions all but hand them one. If all that makes you wonder who’s the superpower, what do you suppose they’re thinking?

That’s talking with an enemy that has us pretty well pegged, while we stubbornly resist even thinking about what motivates him. We wouldn’t want to question his ideology. After all, what would CAIR say?

The democracy project tells Islamists that we don’t understand them — or care to try understanding them. The “let’s talk” gambit confirms that we’re not just studiously ignorant; we’re ripe for the taking.

For our own sake, we need to respect the enemy. That means grasping that he’s implacable, that he means us only harm, and that he must be subdued, not appeased. Negotiating with such evil is always a mistake, for any accommodation with evil is, by definition, evil.

Rejecting the democracy project is about respecting the enemy. Declining to talk to the enemy is about respecting ourselves.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,793
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
The auothor shapes the issue is an interesting light and I agree with him on many. With the minimal support of Americans I can see why the least "intrusive" method of accomplishing change was used first although calling it the democratization of Iraq was weak. It was unsuccessful for the reasons that the author mentioned but by no means an excuse to throw in the towel. If the powers that be in Iraq want the US to leave, we will no doubt pack our guns and go however I yet heard anyone to include Sadr ask or demand our departure.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
27,420
Reaction score
7,402
Points
280
Location
Arizona
Very good article. What we should be doing is going to war with Iran, and not to democratize them, but to destroy them, and take their oil as war reparations. They are an evil nation that has been completely brainwashed into believing that the U.S. is Satan, literally.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
Excellent article. A great observation -

They haven’t refused to democratize because the Federalist Papers are not yet out in Arabic. They decline because their leaders have freely chosen to decline. They see us as the mortal enemy of the life they believe Allah commands. Their demurral is wrong, but it is principled, not ignorant. And we insult them by suggesting otherwise.
We only need to focus on what is essentially important to US. Hawk names the best and quickest solution for the whole middle east threat which is to cut off their head :thup:

What we should be doing is going to war with Iran, and not to democratize them, but to destroy them, and take their oil as war reparations. They are an evil nation that has been completely brainwashed into believing that the U.S. is Satan, literally.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Very good article. What we should be doing is going to war with Iran, and not to democratize them, but to destroy them, and take their oil as war reparations. They are an evil nation that has been completely brainwashed into believing that the U.S. is Satan, literally.
I understand your frustration, but that is not what we are hearing from most of our soldiers.

I think we should have abandoned the one nation approach two years ago and split Iraq into Kurd, Sunni and Shite, with defensible borders between them all, and a defensible border around the entire region. By defensible I mean along a river or mountain range, or through no-mans land with two rows of razor wire 400 meters apart and a free fire zone between. Run the oil by Haliburton, give a share to each state, and have the UN monitor it (and we'd monitor the UN).

I think the reason why Bush-Rummy wanted Iraq in one piece was more historical than anything. But Iraq should never have been created by the Allies post WW2 anyway. Add the money created by oil and you've got a disaster, which is exactly what has been going on for 40 years.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I understand your frustration, but that is not what we are hearing from most of our soldiers.

I think we should have abandoned the one nation approach two years ago and split Iraq into Kurd, Sunni and Shite, with defensible borders between them all, and a defensible border around the entire region. By defensible I mean along a river or mountain range, or through no-mans land with two rows of razor wire 400 meters apart and a free fire zone between. Run the oil by Haliburton, give a share to each state, and have the UN monitor it (and we'd monitor the UN).

I think the reason why Bush-Rummy wanted Iraq in one piece was more historical than anything. But Iraq should never have been created by the Allies post WW2 anyway. Add the money created by oil and you've got a disaster, which is exactly what has been going on for 40 years.
You mean like the Rio Grande?:splat:
 

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
You know if I felt like it would make a crap I'd go back into the service, I'd be a little out of shape and I'm kind of broke up, but I'd grab up my trusty HLU-256 Hurnia Bar and start loading bombs for the cause of ethnic cleansing of all these terrorist pukes! See in the end I'd be either dead or so broke I'd rather die. Ain't nothing gonna happen until we as a Nation say enough is enough and break out the good stuff! I mean the stuff that glows in the dark for a thousand years. Yeah pretty un-realistic but until that happens we won't be respected or feared because he have hearts and it takes a hard heart to survive war. Yet we all know this but we have these silver spooned folk living over here that think everything is milk and honey and well I know it ain't so. :lalala:
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
27,420
Reaction score
7,402
Points
280
Location
Arizona
Yes. Absolutely. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the negatives about a plan like that.
Unfortunately dividing them up into the 3 different states would probably trigger alot of unwelcomed events. The Turks (and maybe even Iran) would probably make war against the Kurds. Both countries have their own Kurds that are fighting for independence within their own borders. The Shiites would practically be the same as Iran. Who knows what would happen between Sunni and Shia, that could turn into an all out war, especially if the Shia start getting military help from Iran. I agree with you that Iraq should had never been created in the manner it was. Either way, its just an ugly mess, and there is no easy solution. Since America is now unwilling to go to war against the biggest threat, and will be even more unwilling if Dems take the Whitehouse in '08, Iran will soon be a nuclear power that will go unchallenged.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Unfortunately dividing them up into the 3 different states would probably trigger alot of unwelcomed events. The Turks (and maybe even Iran) would probably make war against the Kurds. Both countries have their own Kurds that are fighting for independence within their own borders. The Shiites would practically be the same as Iran. Who knows what would happen between Sunni and Shia, that could turn into an all out war, especially if the Shia start getting military help from Iran. I agree with you that Iraq should had never been created in the manner it was. Either way, its just an ugly mess, and there is no easy solution. Since America is now unwilling to go to war against the biggest threat, and will be even more unwilling if Dems take the Whitehouse in '08, Iran will soon be a nuclear power that will go unchallenged.
So we take out Iran as well, break 'em both up into Kurds and Sunni and Shia, defensible borders around all of them, mayber a free for all zone where the Sunnis and Shia can have a blood fest on each other. The less of them around the better off everyone will be.:dev3:
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Yes. Absolutely. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the negatives about a plan like that.
Simple. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand will not keep religious fanatics from crossing those lines to kill the ones who do not follow their beliefs.

You mentioned three countries -- one for the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds. What about the tribes who live on ancient tribal lands regardless what others labelled the place? You would be providing them with cause to fight against us, and whatever government they fell under.

As Hawk points out, you would be making a target of the Kurds. By providing them a soverign nation and legitimacy you make it a singular target for the Turks who could attack only the Kurds thereby not involving the militant Islamics.

By providing militant religious sects with sovereign nations you set the precedence of legitimizing them as Palestine did with Hamas.

And you aren't going to keep the other Arab nation's religious militants out of the fray.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Simple. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand will not keep religious fanatics from crossing those lines to kill the ones who do not follow their beliefs.

You mentioned three countries -- one for the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds. What about the tribes who live on ancient tribal lands regardless what others labelled the place? You would be providing them with cause to fight against us, and whatever government they fell under.

As Hawk points out, you would be making a target of the Kurds. By providing them a soverign nation and legitimacy you make it a singular target for the Turks who could attack only the Kurds thereby not involving the militant Islamics.

By providing militant religious sects with sovereign nations you set the precedence of legitimizing them as Palestine did with Hamas.

And you aren't going to keep the other Arab nation's religious militants out of the fray.
The lines would be arbitrary, but enforced with free fire zones. Anyone in there would be killed, no questions asked.

You brought up some good points why Iraq should be a single country. You may be right. Bush- Rummy may be right. I hope that y'all are.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
27,420
Reaction score
7,402
Points
280
Location
Arizona
The other problem with drawing up borders is that the three different groups aren't already segregated into those areas, they live amongst each other. We'd be talking about forced relocation of many people.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
Unfortunately dividing them up into the 3 different states would probably trigger alot of unwelcomed events. The Turks (and maybe even Iran) would probably make war against the Kurds. Both countries have their own Kurds that are fighting for independence within their own borders. The Shiites would practically be the same as Iran. Who knows what would happen between Sunni and Shia, that could turn into an all out war, especially if the Shia start getting military help from Iran. I agree with you that Iraq should had never been created in the manner it was. Either way, its just an ugly mess, and there is no easy solution. Since America is now unwilling to go to war against the biggest threat, and will be even more unwilling if Dems take the Whitehouse in '08, Iran will soon be a nuclear power that will go unchallenged.
That's my biggest fear as well...And now Bolton is gone, the one person with any real gumption to get things done.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
The other problem with drawing up borders is that the three different groups aren't already segregated into those areas, they live amongst each other. We'd be talking about forced relocation of many people.
This would have been less of a problem had it been done three years ago, and we went in and did some major destruction first, relocate the tribes, then set up borders.

The other thing that I did not mention, but have several times previously, is that Iraq would still exist as a feredartion to distribute oil money. This federation could also be used for border protection of all three states from the outside influences, such as Turkey that Gunny mentioned. With free fire borders, even the UN should be able to keep the peace, especially if backed up by American fyboys patrooling the border zone.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,278
Reaction score
10,111
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Unfortunately dividing them up into the 3 different states would probably trigger alot of unwelcomed events. The Turks (and maybe even Iran) would probably make war against the Kurds. Both countries have their own Kurds that are fighting for independence within their own borders. The Shiites would practically be the same as Iran. Who knows what would happen between Sunni and Shia, that could turn into an all out war, especially if the Shia start getting military help from Iran. I agree with you that Iraq should had never been created in the manner it was. Either way, its just an ugly mess, and there is no easy solution. Since America is now unwilling to go to war against the biggest threat, and will be even more unwilling if Dems take the Whitehouse in '08, Iran will soon be a nuclear power that will go unchallenged.
26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. (Luke 21:26)

if the hearts of men arent failing now, when they do this world is in seriously problems.
 
Top