Iraq: What I Really Think
I post this post out of a feeling of obligation to my American friends. In the previous post, I wrote of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq:
[…] Both moves can now be seen as failures: the Taliban are rearing their heads again, and as for Iraq… suffice it here to say that there is no greater indication of the failure of it than the rise of Islamic parties and the plight of the non-Muslims of Iraq. “We fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” has resulted in the opposite situation, in which the flower of the West are stuck in a faraway place without even a name for the enemy, and of course, following from that, without the foggiest idea of what the word, “victory” could mean in this context; all while the heartland of the West is being assaulted by the Marxism-Islam alliance from within. Which brings me to the recent events.
Now, with American Democrat Senator Harry Reid’s cowardly words on the situation in Iraq, saying that the war there is lost, the question may arise as to the difference between Reid’s opinion and mine.
The difference is the following: Reid says America has lost in Iraq, while I say America has neither won nor lost, but rather is stuck in a limbo that drains its resources, both human and material.
The main thrust in my argument is that it is impossible to talk of either a victory or a defeat in the case of Iraq, because victory was never defined in the first place. If it’s about wresting Iraq away from Saddam, then the US achieved victory back in 2003, not long after the invasion. Weapons of mass destruction have also been found, though this is something most states have, so it’s no big deal. The people of Iraq have been freed to hold elections, to bring to power those they have wished. As far as all those goals go, the US is victorious.
But what is the US Army doing in Iraq now? What is the present goal? American soldiers are assaulted in Iraq every day, by Muslim terrorists. Those are named, “insurgents” or “militants” by the Western TreasonMedia, and hailed as “resistors of American imperialism” by those who have done away with pretensions to objectivity (see on CounterPunch any day). Free elections have not transformed Iraq into a Western-style state; on the contrary, they have enabled the Muslims of Iraq to raise theocrats to power. Finally, the demise of Saddam’s iron hand has spelled chaos and bloodshed to this multi-sectarian country.
There is this fact that our clueless policymakers (in State Department, in the EU—everywhere) fail to grasp: Muslim societies have never been able to rise above the dichotomy of orderly repression versus bloody anarchy. It is a proverb among them, that a thousand years of repression (dictatorial rule) are better than one night of civil war. Those are the only options. The Western concept of self-sustaining order, held by the people themselves, is foreign to the Islamic world. In the Middle East, the only exceptions are Israel and Lebanon, the latter now in jeopardy because of the demographic decline of the Christians there.
The absolute worst outcome of the US invasion of Iraq, in my opinion, is the return of dhimmi status for the non-Muslims. Saddam Hussein had held Islamic law in check in order to preserve Iraq’s secular, Baathist veneer; now the proponents of shariah law are free to wreak their atrocity on the non-Muslims of Iraq. This is exactly the opposite of where this war should be headed: the goal should be to make conditions for the non-Muslims better, not worse! But with such policymakers as think that the “hearts and minds” (another useless phrase from the Vietnam era) of the “Iraqi people” (a “people” as real as the “Californian people” or the “Palestinian people”) need to be won away from the “tiny minority of radical Muslims”, instead of recognizing that the enemy is Islam, the religio-political ideology that drives people to blow themselves up and to raise their children to commit atrocities, there is no chance of victory. The American troops in Iraq are neither winning nor losing, but stuck in a bloody limbo because of the government’s failure to name the enemy and to set a goal.
Naming the enemy, setting the goal of victory over it and taking the steps toward achieving it are all moves outside the bounds of the politically correct. Denazification, as Steven Plaut (HaShem bless him) puts it, necessarily involves acts of “Western colonialism” and “cultural imperialism”. Just the first, minimal step of mercilessly executing those imams and their followers who are for killing apostates is something that the bleeding hearts at CounterPunch would decry as “a continuation of the old White disregard toward the rest of the world”. For victory to be achieved in Iraq, the policymakers need to be men that can respond to such accusations with an extension of the middle finger—not the type who change the name, “Operation Infinite Justice” to “Operating Enduring Freedom” just because some call it offensive.
Under the current way of operating, the US presence in Iraq achieves little that is positive, and much that is negative. Reid says this is the reason why the US needs to pull out of Iraq. I do not say so; I say this is the reason for some change of course: either staying in Iraq but together with letting go of the politically correct shackles that are making it a real quagmire for the troops there, or pulling out in order to put those fine, upstanding men and women to good use in the homeland. The current way is senseless.
Al Qaeda has not defeated the US. Islam has not defeated the non-Muslim world. It is beyond the current military capability of the Muslims to do so. Ideological anemia of the non-Muslim world is the only enabler of their victories. This is true both in faraway Iraq and in the American and European heartlands. The only surge sure to bring us victory is a surge in ideological self-confidence. Rid the world of excessive self-doubt and its proponents, and the evildoers will follow shortly.