Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

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.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Michael said...

Ideological anemia of the non-Muslim world is the only enabler of their victories.

There's the key. We're not going to find the way to win this clash of cultures until we start to celebrate ourselves, as well as fight the enemy.

On this subject, it is interesting to note that the only two Western nations with birthrates that significantly exceed replacement levels (2.4 and 2.75, respectively) are the US and Israel.

So here is the question that the West should be asking:
What are the US and Israel doing right, that their people believe in the future enough to have babies?

April 22, 2007 4:18 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

Michael, while those numbers are accurate they are slightly misleading. For it isnt the general population that has such birth rates but certain segments with very high rates which even out with the general population which has a very low birth rate. In both countries the religious tend to have the very high birth rates, they are also the segment of the population which is patriotic, with some exceptions. So the question is in each country will the ruling elite get out of the way of those who still believe in their nations? Will the ruling elites give up power to those who want more than to have power but truly love their countries? From the experiences with the Kach party I'd say probably not.

April 22, 2007 4:50 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Michael, Don Feder writes exactly about that in his latest: Atheists Won't Save Europe, from April 19, 2007. I don't care much about atheists so long as they don't exempt Islam from their critiques of religion, but it's a fact they're not big on pru u-r'vu.


Uri Orbach, nationalist-religious columnist on Yediot Achronot, writes frequent complaints on that issue. The cry of the elite that "Group X stole our state" (where X = Sephardim [not anymore, but it used to be in the not so far past], mitnachalim, chareidim, you name it), says Orbach, bespeaks their lack of acceptance of Israel's change of course.

It remains to be seen how the Leftist ruling elites can sustain their rule. Owing to the events from 1994 (the first bus bombings) to this day, they have been thinned out to such an extent that they're like the tip of a pyramid. Of course, even a thin layer of rulers can be significant if they control the means of enforcement; but the undercurrents are already in motion. On Shabbat of Mishpatim, I read about how there are many Jews, even secular, preferring to peruse rabbinical courts because of weariness of the Politically Correct laws that have taken over our judicial system. In effect, this means the foundations of a sane, patriotic state are being laid as we speak. So I hope, and HaShem be with us!

April 22, 2007 5:07 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Kahane Loyalist:
You're not wrong, but I also think you're not completely correct.

Yes, there are segments of Israeli society with higher-than average birthrates; however, Israelis as a whole are having more babies than Europeans; and unlike other Western countries, in Israel, as income goes up, so does the average number of children per family. That is indicitave of a society in which children are premium.

From my own personal experience (I'm a slightly right of center, unaffiliated tho Conservatively observant {my wife is more observant than I am}, American oleh, with like-minded friends), I can say that most young couples I know have at least 2 kids, some have 3 or 4, and those with fewer want more.

These are not folks in the Haredi, religious Zionist, or Arab sectors (the parts of Israeli society with the highest birthrates); these are just "middle Israelis" (albeit with a strong Anglo influence- olim or descendents of olim).

And I don't think it is just my "circle," either; I have seen the size of families at my daughter's non-religious gan last year, and at my younger daughter's metepelet.

Just based on observation, it seems that Israelis really are having babies at a fairly high rate.

The issue of better governance in an entirely different matter, of course. What we have now is obviously not up to the job.

April 22, 2007 5:48 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

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. ..While I agree.. I dont think we can afford to embolden the enemey and allow Iran and Syria to take over and destroy Israel and us!...great work ZY!!

April 22, 2007 9:47 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

Michael, Baruch Hashem, I had not realized there was such a strong birth rate among the non-observant Jews.

ZY, what I see happenig is a group which has had power for many years has their grip loosening. This naturally terrifies them, and as they become weaker they will become ever more dangerous. Case in point the elites essentially ignored Rabbi Kahane till 1983 once he started to become a threat, however minor at that point, they began to act against him. I see the same events taking place once a group or segment of Israeli society becomes a danger to the continued power of the elites they do everything they can to crush this threat, even when it goes against their precious "democracy".

April 22, 2007 9:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home