You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Why the Concern
2004-09-22
I hear there are areas in and around Baghdad that are anti US and Britian. I don't understand why we don't carpet bomb these cities and villages. They are filled with people who hate us and who would kill us given the chance. These are the enemy and this is war! We will never win a war of public opinion with the Arab world or those patsy Europeans so lets just go for it and get it over now.
That's a suggestion, I guess. But it's based on emotion, rather than a sense of what we're trying to accomplish. The problem is that there are lots of people in Baghdad and even in Fallujah who aren't anti-US and Britain. Sure, we could carpet bomb everything in sight — "making a desolation and calling it peace" is the phrase I occasionally use. I stole it from Livy. And in some cases we'll end up doing that, eventually.

But we're at war with an ideological movement, not with Islam itself, despite how closely the adherents of the ideology identify it with the religion. I'm not fond of Islam as a religion, and the fact that the Bad Guys chock their mosques full of weaponry emphasizes how closely the ideology and the religion are intertwined. But not all Muslims are nutbags, and probably most of them aren't. So we've somehow got to kill and/or capture the adherents of the ideology while leaving the non-nutbags alone as much as we can.

Islam's made up of a large number of sects and cults: not only Sunnis, but also Shias, Sufis, Ismailis, Brelvis, Ahmadis and even, if you stretch the point, Ba'hais. Only two of those are actively engaged in conducting terror operations: Sunnis and Shias. Within the Sunni branch, only the Wahhabis have really gone gonzo; the occasional adherent of a different Sunni strain will usually have some political cause, like the PFLP and DFLP in Paleostine. Within Shiism, the Qom school in Iran is the driver behind "international Islamic revolution." The Najaf school's not politically aggressive, which is why the Medes and the Persians were pushing their proxies to take it over. Some of the sects, or portions of them, are allied with us — people like the Kurds, who're mostly Sufis, and portions of Pakland who haven't swilled the Koolade and/or who can guess which side's going to win eventually.

I'd also add that there shouldn't be a death penalty associated with merely disliking, or even hating, us. We actually are occupying Iraq, and there will naturally be a fairly large segment of the population who'll be happy to see us go. We'd feel much the same if the U.S. had lived under a bloody-handed dictatorship for the past 35 years and it had been removed by foreigners. We'd be glad to see the bloody-handed dictator gone, but we'd be wanting to run our own affairs, even before we were remotely ready to do so. That's human nature. Add in the traditional Arab difficulty with the concept of "gratitude," and the problem's aggravated further.

What we're actually trying to do is to make those distinctions in the war we're carrying out. The Bad Guys are quick enough to point to the dead babies when we take out a snake pit that's been set up in a residential neighborhood, and they howl even louder when we actually do make a mistake. That means force when applied has to be proportional and well-aimed. When we're not using military force, we're using diplomatic tactics to try and talk the fence-sitters onto our side and to further isolate the Bad Guys. The while, we're using the guys with the green eyeshades to try and track the money flow to cut off the funding that buys all those arms and ammunition. The intel guys are trying to build the order of battle, so we know who to chase down and who's a front man and who's mere cannon fodder. We didn't have to kill any Libyans for Muammar to change sides. According to today's posts, both Egypt and Syria are kinda-sorta thinking about making plans to get ready to loosen up their societies.

So don't take an over-simplified view of what's going on. If we're not shooting someone, we're talking to someone, and sometimes talk works. Or we're picking his pocket. Or we're looking at his friends. If all that doesn't work, we can always shoot them later.
Posted by:mike0050

#29  Posts disappear. Anyone who says that Iraq is being pacified and that nation-building is yielding a pro-American government in Iraq, is wallowing in self-deceit.
Posted by: Anonymous6334   2004-09-22 5:37:53 PM  

#28  "... I don’t understand why we don’t carpet bomb these cities and villages...."

Right, blow them all up!

Posted by: Alaska Raul   2004-09-22 4:52:15 PM  

#27  lex, it may well come down to America finally having to have the courage to press forward with the one trillion dollar lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. Should they refuse to pay, then (per .com's suggestion) we should take the 40 km strip of concetrated oil producing area by force as a form of restitution. The Saudis have contributed massively, both financially and via government propaganda, to intense anti-Americanism in their country. They bear direct responsibility for the 9-11 atrocity.

I fully concur with you about Russia. However, it's far from encouraging that they still show not one single sign of admitting any connection between Iran and Beslan. Therefore, I do not hold out a lot of hope vis bringing their petroleum production up to speed.

It's really quite sad that we cannot bring the African reserves into play better. I feel that big oil was allowed far too free a hand and they have thoroughly scotched the situation there. We should also consider training an elite cadre of Iraqi security personnel who would receive a small commission on the profits if oil flow is not interrupted. Such incentive would quite possibly motivate them to eschew all participation with terrorists who continually disrupt delivery. Truly aggressive protection of Iraq's production would help ameliorate our dependence on Saudi reserves.

I have serious doubts about developing the ANWR fields. Although recently developed slant-drilling methods have drastically reduced the footprint of modern wellheads, the arctic environment is incredibly fragile, on a par with desert ecologies. Additionally, the ANWR doesn't represent such a vast amount of deliverables.

It would be better to invest the same money into alternative vehicle designs. Finally, I have little hope for the current administration doing squat if it goes counter to big oil. Time and again, the republicans have been bought and sold by big business and big oil, not that the democrats aren't either. They just don't happen to be in power right now.

Merely consider current trade policy regarding China. We are effectively financing China's nuclear proliferation to Iran which we now may have to counter by insanely expensive military force. This makes no mention of our outlay for troops in South Korea. We protect them from the North who is financed by China using the massive trade surplus they have with America.

At some point, the United States must realize that inexpensive manufactured goods aren't so cheap when we have to pay enormous defense bills to counter the damage done by handing over vast sums of money to our enemies. So long as politicians are swayed by campaign contributions from those who directly profit by doing business with communist China, this isn't going to happen.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-09-23 2:11:06 AM  

#26  um, Zen, the wahhabis still have the oil. Nothing would more quickly bring down a US president than a doubling or tripling of gasoline prices at the pump.

Unless and until we can smash OPEC's power over us-- probably through a combination of helping Russia get vastly more efficient and productive, drilling in ANWR, and conservation-- we're going to have to play the realpolitik balancing and containment game. And play it ruthlessly, which means recognizing that Blair own't help us with Iran, that France is on the other side entirely, and that we need Russia to take our side 100% and cease dealing with the mullahs.
Posted by: lex   2004-09-23 12:16:03 AM  

#25  We didn't have to kill any Libyans for Muammar to change sides.

Nitpick, Fred. Ghadafi only started writing us love letters when we offed some of his family after the Gulf of Sidra incident.

The biggest problem confronting us is that due to the very nature of Islam, there will be an endless supply of terrorists. There will always be some Abu or Ali that insists the Caliphate must happen.

All indications are that Islam neither has the will nor inclination to reform from within. The religion's continuing inability to unanimously condemn terrorism and initiate reform-from-within all point towards constant terror attacks.

At some point the civilized world will need to confront the necessity of banning Islam or simply begin wholesale destruction of every location that teaches violent jihad.

As I have repeatedly mentioned, the horrendous diversion of resources required to fight Islamic terrorism is literally killing untold hundreds or thousands of innocent people each day. Whether they are starving to death, dying of AIDS or being tortured by some tyrannical regime, it matters not. Vital funds are tied up by having to fight this incredibly small but virulent handful of theocratic fanatics.

We must weigh the consequences of wiping out a small portion of the world's population in exchange for the chance to save a much larger chunk of humanity. I am not saying that we should kill all Muslims, but at some point, killing all of the Iranian mullahs, decapitating the governments of Sudan and Syria or holding hostage the Arabian shrines may have to happen.

Islam must reform or die. While they have to change from within, there is no reason for us to put up with the glacial pace they allow themselves. There must be a price connected with their lackluster attitude. Some form of both an incentive and a deterrent is needed to motivate this change. I say that we should begin to implement these measures before a nuclear terror attack upon America and not wait until after one has claimed a million lives.

We must disabuse Islam of its lust for theological ascendancy, by force if necessary.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-09-22 11:49:11 PM  

#24  "urging we make Mecca or Medina a parking lot. Sorry, it might feel good to vent, but are you serious?"

Islam has been at war with the world for over a millenium (1000 years) now. Are you serious? Of course its time to stamp out this disease. It has no place in a world where nuclear weapons are common.

Islam is at war on all fronts. Most moslems aren't nutjobs, but those who are honest about what islam says about the world are the ones we are fighting. Don't look for education to moderate them, the more education they have the more likely they are to understand exactly what the message of islam is: Kill non moslems.

Being sympathetic doesnt make you any less of an infidel, just more likely to be at the end of the line for killing.
Posted by: flash91   2004-09-22 10:02:17 PM  

#23  Posts disappear. ??? Does this statement have meaning?

Anyone who says that Iraq is being pacified and that nation-building is yielding a pro-American government in Iraq, is wallowing in self-deceit. Iraq is being pacified. That's why most of the violence is Arab-on-Arab, and most of the kidnappings as well. You would know this if you bothered to read their local press and weblogs. Anyway, we aren't looking for a pro-American government as such there, just one (unlike the Baathists that used to rule) that isn't a safe haven for terrorists and actively working against civilization.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-09-22 9:59:25 PM  

#22  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Anonymous6334 TROLL   2004-09-22 5:37:53 PM  

#21  In some ways we are victims of our own success. Who does the heavy lifting in keeping key choke points in sea lanes open? The US Navy. NATO countries have thrived because they do not share the heavy defense burden that the US does. We have thrived DESPITE having these burdens.

On the subject of the ME countries and Islamofascism, the only reason that we are out there and give a rat's behind about what happens to Saudi, Kuwait, etc is that through an accident of Nature, 40% of the worlds proven oil reserves are smack dab underneath a bunch of the most perverted and backward thinking cultures on the globe. We are talking about the life blood of the industrialized world, and that is not just the US, EU, Japan, but also Chicoms, etc.

A byproduct of the sale of oil in this region is the accummulation of huge wealth to a relatively few. Now it is their business what they do with their money, EXCEPT for when they use it to finance our destruction. Then it becomes OUR business.

We have mulitple paths to take to deal with this situation:
1. Encourage or force these leaders to stop with the destructive financing of terrorism.
2. If they do not, take over their oil fields, run it ourselves and put the money in trust for the people.
3. Destroy the bastards and take the oil.
4. Develop alternate sources of energy in order to leave these people high and dry to pound sand.

I suspect that a combination of paths is what will be needed to solve the problem. But one thing stands out: the UN is part of the problem and not part of the solution. I like Liberalhawk's ideas on shifting coalitions of the willing. We cannot ever make our sovereignty second to anyone.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-09-22 5:37:38 PM  

#20  Sauce for the gander, Gentlemen. The very same nuclear development and proliferation that poses a threat to civilized society also provides an opportunity to "entrepreneurs" on the side of *GOOD*. If those "entrepreneurs" determine that the nations of the world lack the willpower to strike down the illusion that is Islam, perhaps they will decide to take matters in their own hands and nuke that stupid black rock themselves.

"What would it accomplish?" you might ask. Well, for starters, it would immediately trivialize the notion that "Allah" will provide victory for Islam--the symbolic value of such a strike alone would be tremendous.

Is that likely tommorrow? No. But if the world sits on its hands for another decade or 2, don't be surprised if the urge to take matters into one's own hands doesn't become more popular.

Posted by: Crusader   2004-09-22 5:36:02 PM  

#19  This is a pretty good summary and response to why we need to be in Iraq, and why we shouldn't "just nuke 'em". Though I admit I have thought and said that sometimes...like right after 9-11, or after an atrocity, like the most recent beheading. The fact is, most Muslims aren't nut jobs...

On the other hand, I gotta say it feels to good to know we could just nuke 'em if we had to...and if Iraq does not work, it may come to that.
Posted by: Mr. K   2004-09-22 5:25:31 PM  

#18  I think theres a logic to shifting coalitions of the willing, but i think we still have more in common with the market democracies, even the wimpy market democracies with their own agendas, than with other states.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-09-22 5:06:07 PM  

#17  Np with that. I think we're reaching Phase II of this war, in which we scale back some of the more sweeping and unrealistic goals of the Iraq Phase. Namely, recognizing that the threat is greater but more specific than we thought and that there are many more failing and failed states than we anticipated. Greater but more specific in the sense that there are potentially thousands of jihadist cells that, cancer-like, metastasize independent of each other and that Iran will soon have enough fissile material to give one of these cells what they need to slip a durty bomb or two into a container that will come to a port near you.

And that there are many more straddle states than we anticipated, and that some of those states have enormous potential to hurt or help us (Pak, Russia, Saudi, Turkey, India...) while others, previously viewed as crucial, are in fact not likely to help or harm us very much and therefore simply don't matter as much as the above (France, Germany, other "allies" like Canada...).

So time for us in short to dispense witht he fiction of the solidarity of
"the West" and be ruthless, cunning, double-dealing, playing nation off against nation etc.
Posted by: lex   2004-09-22 5:02:20 PM  

#16  Lex-you note that Bernard Lewis believes it is a clash within a civilization and that it's not for us to democratize the world.

OK-then if the world chooses to be undemocratic-ie, terrorist-supporting, religion-suppressing, misogynistic, etc., and wants us out of their faces, they should expect simultaneously that we have no money to place in the outstretched palms of their governments.
Posted by: jules 187   2004-09-22 4:55:22 PM  

#15  I want to be clear. I only support nuking Mecca, Medina et al, if we suffer another September 11th. Unitl we get a resolution to the WoT I say talk to islam when you can and kill when you can't. If a nation has a problem dealing with controling it's citizens who are funding or participating in attacks on us they are fair game for a wacking.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-09-22 4:55:05 PM  

#14  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Alaska Raul TROLL   2004-09-22 4:52:15 PM  

#13  AP, Feith actually has a pretty good idea: start to build support for the notion that terrorism is analogous to the slave trade, ie an abomination that should be resisted and cracked down upon by all civilized nations regardless of their ideological or cultural bent.

A long-term, uphill fight, I know, but a coherent and viable proposition, and one that does not make our success dependent upon the vagaries of political change (or lack thereof) in the muslim world. Beslan could be a turning point here.
Posted by: lex   2004-09-22 4:43:01 PM  

#12  Also on record as saying that it's not for us to democratize the muslim world.

ISTR he DID say that democracy COULD spread in the muslim world, and that Iraq was a place to start.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-09-22 4:34:50 PM  

#11  This is why I like Rantburg. We have articles posted that get into all phases of the WoT. Some are thoughtful, some make your blood boil. All of them together give us a much better picture of the situation than we can get anywhere.

Yes, there is alot of snarkyness.
Yes, there is alot of KTALGSEO (Kill them all let God sort em out).
But when things get carried away too much, someone comments about the big picture and all the ramifications and a critical examination of the alternative actions occurs. With help from Fred and the editors, the site maintains itself and we go on looking for the truth.

This WoT that our country (and the world, willing or not)is in is even bigger than Islamofascism. We are talking about the survival of our species, as we humans are at the door where most any Joe can get a Nuke, CBW weapon, or anything that can cause mass destruction. There will have to be built in checks and balances to prevent our self destruction.

There are people studying this now, and, in the long run, it will be vital to understand our nature for stopping the cycle of violence that the human species have been doing for so long to each other. It is psychological, it is biological, it is cultural, it is the whole ball of wax. And folks, the solution will be more than singing Kumbayah and hugging each other, that's for sure.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-09-22 4:32:57 PM  

#10  This is a clash WITHIN a civilization

Bernard Lewis agrees and has repeated this many times. Also on record as saying that it's not for us to democratize the muslim world.
Posted by: lex   2004-09-22 4:32:08 PM  

#9  they're busy trying to *kill us*.

"they" spend more time trying to kill "them" - IE the islamist terrorists spend most of their time killing muslims, from algeria to iraq to turkey to KSA to Pakistan to Afghanistan.

This is a clash WITHIN a civilization. Which is NOT to say that the evil ones are few in number. If they were, it wouldnt be much of a clash, now would it? Its a huge thing, with its outcome an open question precisely because the numnber of supporters of the Islamist death cult is a huge portion of all muslims (20-30% id wager) and the number of genuine moderates relatively small (15 to 25%, maybe) and the mushy middle is terribly confused, misguided, and sometimes just plain stupid. But it remains a war WITHIN a civilization above all. The leaders of the Islamist death cult want above all else to turn it into a war BETWEEN civilizations, since that would grant them dominance of the Islamic civilization, and take away the power of their enemies in Pakistan, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, etc. While we must be PREPARED for that eventuality, we must do all we can to avoid it.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-09-22 4:26:18 PM  

#8  And also. I'm okay with the way we are fighting in Iraq as per what Fred opined. Sweet reason is cool but lets not play a holding game.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-09-22 4:09:18 PM  

#7  Sounds reasonable, Fred, except for a few sticking points:

1. The Wahhabis are busy establishing missions all over the world while their royals play a double game and try to placate Washington. Wahhabis are financing religous infrastructure everywhere from Pakistan to the U.S. to teach an Islam that is nothing but trouble for the western world. We are still losing on this front.

2. The vipers nest in Qom makes no apologies for their intention to wipe us off the planet. They have been giving us a hard time directly and by proxy for 25 years. After 25 years, we are still losing on this front too.

3. Muammar is a sly devil. It remains to be seen whether he has truly seen the light or is just cashing in now so he can backstab us later. By experience he is a backstabber. Feed the Libyan economy and he will use the wealth to do it again. So I suspect that we are ultimately losing with Libya too.

4. Iraq is packed with hold-overs from the old regime who still have a lot of weapons and will hold a grudge against us forever unless they win. It's a pity they retreated so fast that we couldn't disarm them. There's a lesson in that; I hope we learn it.

I do not advocate carpet bombing in Baghdad, but I do advocate facing up to the fact that this whole clash of civilizations is going to get worse before it gets better. The enemy has faced our Jimmy Carter and our Bill Clinton and has been emboldened by them. They have seen Dubya whack the Taliban and Saddam and their response has been to pursue uranium enrichment. Unless Dubya smacks them down really, really hard in term two, they're eventually going to kill millions of Americans. So I can empathize a bit with the writer's sentiments.

So how does Dubya smack them down really, really hard? Not with ground troops, that's for sure. I advocate bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and military facilities beyond restoration. I have suggested using nukes because that would make the devastation total and quick -- and it would scare the hell out of everyone who opposes us. I see us as being at the same point that we were with Japan in 1945: we must finish it but we are not willing to shed the blood of a hundred thousand of our troops to impose our will.

It's not pretty either way.
Posted by: Tom   2004-09-22 3:54:17 PM  

#6  While we're busy attempting to "win hearts and minds", they're busy trying to *kill us*.

Islam's the cause, and it must be eradicated.
Posted by: Crusader   2004-09-22 3:34:51 PM  

#5  Sorry guys, I'm still convinced there are the seeds of evil in islam. I have no problem with the destruction of mecca, medina, the golden dome et all. I have no problem with taking this thing to a head. I'm not into nukeing vast populations or Tehran and the like. But until the thing is kilt, kilted good and dead I fear a Paleo/Israel festoring sore.

I don't fear Mexicans, Iranians, Iraqies, Pakis or whomever. I fear islamic cut throats.

Medved is reporting right now that Al Shami was killed today. A prominate jihadie allied with Zarqawi
Posted by: Lucky   2004-09-22 3:24:48 PM  

#4  Fred is right, right. Moreover, I can only shake my head at comments I have read in the past couple of years urging we make Mecca or Medina a parking lot. Sorry, it might feel good to vent, but are you serious?

I don't need to have the love of Islam and the appeasing Left, or PEW polls as a measuring stick to indicate the eradication of Islamofascism. As if there's a connection! You hate me? Fine, but don't cross the line of contributing money, materiel, intel, or manpower to my enemy. Just sit there and brood or get off your ass and make the rule of law lord over your land, you in Araby/Muslim world. Just sit there and brood, you Leftists, until you pick up the Collected Essays of George Orwell, and see how your actions and words are only destroying what you supposedly find so dear to your existence. But don't act so pre-Sept. 11 to me. It won't work.

Yeah, we've got tons to do, like making sure that those who cross our borders, esp. from Mexico, are legit. No offense to Mexicans, either, but can't W figure this out, in spite of what Rove may think? I'd feel so much better if he did.
Posted by: chicago mike   2004-09-22 2:14:10 PM  

#3  freds response is one of the most concise and well worded explanations of the overall WOT and its relationship to Islam. It should be up permanently, and all absurd posts from left (stop killing the poor muslims) and right (lets kill all the damn muslims) should simply be referred to it.

This reminds me why i like Rantburg.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-09-22 1:55:05 PM  

#2  Hear, hear, Fred!
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-09-22 1:27:29 PM  

#1  LHR, you are a troll.
Posted by: BH   2004-09-22 12:43:52 PM  

00:00