Category Archives: War Commentary

Better Thinking on Iraq

Kagan’s Myths of the Current War has been referred by the WSJ today. Myth 5, “Most Iraqis ‘want us out,’…” is the most interesting:

The real issue about the popularity of American forces is the degree to which their presence fuels the fighting or contains sectarian conflict.

This issue of Foreign Affairs also has a fresh analysis:

The current struggle is not a Maoist “people’s war” of national liberation; it is a communal civil war with very different dynamics.

Religion Of Pieces

Afghani Muslim clerics are threatening to take the Sharia law into their own hands:

…three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul’s most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.

“He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian,” said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.

“The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed.”

Raoulf, who is a member of the country’s main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. “The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled.”

“Cut off his head!” he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. “We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.”

As I’ve said before, this isn’t a clash of civilizations. It’s a clash between civilization and barbarism.

Churchillian

Whatever else you think of Tony Blair (and I understand that there are many who despise him, for apparently good reasons, at least on the domestic policy front), he seems to understand the enemy and its nature, and gives great speeches about it. He did so yesterday.

The easiest line for any politician seeking office in the West today is to attack American policy. A couple of weeks ago as I was addressing young Slovak students, one got up, denouncing US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonisation of the US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the liberation of his country, he would have been unable to ask such a question, let alone get an answer to it.

There is an interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the term “Islamist extremist”. It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are those – perfectly decent-minded people – who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a “Protestant” bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.

Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.

Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through terrorism is wrong.

It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth.

None of this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was right; merely that it is nonsense to suggest it was done because the countries are Muslim…

…This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

Read the whole thing. It’s the first of three, with the other two to come in the next few days or weeks.

I wish, though, that actual British policy, particularly toward unassimilated Muslims in the UK, reflected the words of this speech.

An Iraqi Civil War?

Belmont Club and Trent Telenko weigh in.

Me? It depends on how one defines a civil war. Also, there is an implicit assumption that a civil war in Iraq is a disaster for the US (which is why so much of the Bush-hating press wants to play it up). But civil wars can end, and have outcomes, and the outcome of this one certainly has the potential for continuing to achieve our Middle East goals (in this case, providing a stable source of oil to counter the Saudis, the establishment of a base from which to further pressure Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria).

When I hear the whining and the straw men about how Bush “lied” about how easy this would be, I wonder where they were when he was saying shortly after September 11 that this was a struggle that would take decades, and when Rumsfeld was saying that it would be a long, hard slog. I certainly never had any expectations that this would be easy, or happen overnight. In fact, it’s gone about as well as I expected, and it’s certainly gone much better than many of those who opposed it predicted (oil fields on fire, many thousands of innocent casualties, complete anarchy, Iran and/or Syria taking over, casualties from WMD that he didn’t have, etc.).

And sometime, I need to sit down and write up the likely alternate history had we not removed Saddam. That wouldn’t be a pretty picture, either, for the Iraqis, us, or the world. As the general once said, war is a series of shitty choices.

[Update at 10 AM EST]

Gerard Baker has done exactly that.

That’ll Teach ‘Em (Part 2)

Having a Pat Robertson moment (or, more likely, a Pat Robertson life), one of the many irredeemable lunatics that passes for religious leaders in the Middle East claims that bird flu discovered in Israel is a sign of Allah’s wrath. He also “…asked for congregants to ‘pray for Allah to dry out the sexual organs of the Jews with a disease so they won’t be able to reproduce anymore.'” Can’t you just feel the love emanating from the Religion of Peace?

As the article dryly notes, though:

Muhammed made his comments in spite of predictions the virus found in Israel may surface through migrating fowl in the nearby Palestinian territories.

The article also mentions cases appearing in Egypt. What did they do to piss off Allah? Turkey I can understand, what with their satanic secular state and all, but Egypt? What with all of the disasters going on all over the place, it’s apparently pretty hard to stay on his good side, even if you’re a Muslim. Maybe even especially if you’re a Muslim, judging by (for instance) the tsunami last year. If what the moderate Muslims say about their religion is true, I’d be more a little convinced if Allah would start smiting all these false prophets.

That’ll Teach ‘Em (Part 2)

Having a Pat Robertson moment (or, more likely, a Pat Robertson life), one of the many irredeemable lunatics that passes for religious leaders in the Middle East claims that bird flu discovered in Israel is a sign of Allah’s wrath. He also “…asked for congregants to ‘pray for Allah to dry out the sexual organs of the Jews with a disease so they won’t be able to reproduce anymore.'” Can’t you just feel the love emanating from the Religion of Peace?

As the article dryly notes, though:

Muhammed made his comments in spite of predictions the virus found in Israel may surface through migrating fowl in the nearby Palestinian territories.

The article also mentions cases appearing in Egypt. What did they do to piss off Allah? Turkey I can understand, what with their satanic secular state and all, but Egypt? What with all of the disasters going on all over the place, it’s apparently pretty hard to stay on his good side, even if you’re a Muslim. Maybe even especially if you’re a Muslim, judging by (for instance) the tsunami last year. If what the moderate Muslims say about their religion is true, I’d be more a little convinced if Allah would start smiting all these false prophets.