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
Iraq
Hundred years of Iraq? There is a worse scenario
2008-04-10
A growing number of Democrats have falsely accused Sen. John McCain of "promising" 100 years of war in Iraq.
It's an intentional distortion, since it's long since been clarified and elaborated upon.
In fact, McCain's point was that the presence of American forces promotes stability. That's been the case in Europe and Asia where Americans have been stationed for more than half a century. It's been true in the Balkans since the 1990s when President Clinton sent troops there. America's military plays a beneficial role when it eliminates America's enemies; it does so also when it stays on to prevent those enemies from reemerging.
A hundred years from now Americans might still be fighting militant Islamists in Iraq and other places. What could be worse than that? A hundred years from now America and the West could have been defeated by militant Islamists.
But there is a hard truth that McCain did not state: A hundred years from now Americans might still be fighting militant Islamists in Iraq and other places. What could be worse than that? A hundred years from now America and the West could have been defeated by militant Islamists.
Is there an echo in here?
Al-Qaeda, Iran's ruling mullahs, Hezbollah and others militant jihadis have told us what they are fighting for. The well-known Islamist, Hassan al-Banna, described the movement's goals succinctly: "to dominate ... to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." He said that in 1928.
Al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Who would have believed then that his heirs would acquire the wealth, power and lethality they enjoy today?
All based on oil money that flows out of our pockets in an uninterrupted stream.
Who can say where they may be a hundred years from now? Who can say where the West will be? Survival is not an entitlement. It must be earned by every generation.
The way to bring global jihad, to a screeching halt, to send the would-be lords and masters of the world back to sitting in their tents and beating their women, would be to cease buying oil -- any at all. Since we've been screwing around with "alternative energy sources" since the early 70s -- let's say the last 30 years -- the record sez that's not gonna happen, despite the amount of wind expended, wind that doesn't pass through turbines in the hilles. It's not that it can't be done, but that we won't do it.
The other way to bring global jihad to a screeching halt is to separate the would-be lord and masters of the world from their wealth. It's an accident of geography that these jokers sit on oceans of oil, an accident that could be remedied if push really came to shove. The record to date sez that's not gonna happen either, despite the political wind blowing. Like with alternative energy, it's not that it can't be done, but that we won't do it.
So the most important question not asked of General David Petreaus when he testified before Congress this week is how to maximize our chances of winning the long, global war in which we are engaged. Retreating from key battlefields would not appear to be the most promising strategy. Yet opponents of the Iraq war continue to argue for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. They were unmoved by the most pungent point Petraeus made regarding progress in Iraq. "We are fighting al-Qaeda every day," he said. "We have our teeth in their jugular and we need to keep it there."
The Dems are very much the party of Vietnam. There we suffered 50,000 dead. They're determined to discount the brilliance of a military operation lasting five years that's had 4000 dead. That casualty figures are the measure of our success, regardless of the individual tragedies.
Senator Carl Levin, in remarks just prior to the questioning of Petraeus, had next to nothing to say about al-Qaeda or the Iranian-backed militias Americans and Iraqis also have been battling. Instead, he insisted that Iraq remains mired in a civil war, a talking point long past its sell-by date.
Levin is no different from the Dems in general. Without facts to support them they've got to intentionally misinterpret. The civil war was a Sunni-Shia affair, consciously set up by Zarqawi. Abu Ayub al-Masri hasn't been able to keep it up, and AQI has been ground down to a shadow of its old self -- 15 percent of the size it used to be, according to a recent article.
Other opponents of the Petraeus mission contended that pulling out of Iraq would free up American forces for Afghanistan. But Iraq is the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. Afghanistan, by contrast, is a strategic backwater. What's more, in Afghanistan we are mostly fighting al-Qaeda's junior partner, the Taliban. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have been reconstituting al-Qaeda HQ across the border in the wilder reaches of Pakistan. No one arguing against the Petraeus mission has provided even the vaguest outline of an improved strategy to confront al-Qaeda forces there.
Those hollering for more attention for Afghanistan have a certain amount of sense on their side, but they're ignoring priorities. The heart of the Arab world gives us borders with Syria, Soddy Arabia, and Iran, all problem children. Afghanistan gives us proximity to Qaeda HQ in Chitral. The Talibs are an irritant. In the end they'll make a peace with their Pashtun brothers in the Afghan government and Pashtunistan will be back to memorizing the Koran and beating their women. I'd have put a lot more emphasis on zapping Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar, regardless of which side of the border they're on. When the Qaeda leadership is taken out it will be as a result of intel giving us good enough data for targeting, not as the result of ground operations. On the other hand, if I was the political leadership, I'd be developing the hell out of northern Afghanistan, turning it into something to shame Pashtunistan. Start with the Pandjir Valley and work out. And make any wandering Pashtuns feel unwelcome outside their own areas.
For nations as well as for individuals, both winning and losing can be habit-forming. How many people have you heard say that America lost in Vietnam -- and so what? In 1979, the Iranian mullahs seized our embassy and took our diplomats hostage and we made them pay no price -- and so what? In 1983, Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese proxy, bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and we did nothing much -- and so what? Ten years later, we retreated from Somalia -- and so what? The World Trade Towers were bombed for the first time that same year and we held no regimes or movements responsible -- and so what?

America was seen as a toothless tiger --"a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," in the words of Saddam Hussein.
But you know what? America was seen as a toothless tiger --"a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," in the words of Saddam Hussein. He instructed "all militant believers" to "target (American) interests wherever they may be." Bin Laden declared the United States "a weak horse." In 2006, al-Zawahiri predicted that the U.S. would go down to defeat in Iraq. It is, he said, "only a matter of time." Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, added: "I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the lesson of Vietnam ...and to know that when the Americans lose this war --and lose it they will, Allah willing -- they will abandon them to their fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them throughout history."

Let's suppose it will require a hundred years to defeat such people, the ideas they espouse and the movements they represent. Do we really have anything more important to do?

(Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. E-mail him at cliff(at)defenddemocracy.org)
Posted by:Fred

#7  How different would the world be if the Zionist movement were convinced to create a state at the mouth of the Euphrates and the Jews had all the oil from Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia.

Heck, next time the Arabs pop off perhaps that option should be floated.

Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-04-10 19:00  

#6  I learned in college how modernism has spoiled and destroyed indiginous cultures around the world. It is practically our duty to relieve the bediuin of the burden of their oil and modernism and progress. It clearly conflicts with their native ways.

It's the only humane thing to do really and only a racist would insist they have a right to property when the Beduin, as nomadic people, have never believed in borders.

/snark
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-04-10 18:57  

#5  We will break the oil monopoly. The current prices are unsustainable and we have technology on our side.

We've already got diesel which was originally designed to run on peanut oil. We've got improving hybrid tech and electric car tech can only behelped by the fast recharging batteries in the pipeline. If we give up on the dream of hydrogen the pieces are all there.

Then add the oil reserves recently found in the Dakotas and that bit in Alaska and we can cut our alternate energy with oil as we ramp up.

All we really need is some political leadership to make sure that we don't forget why we're dumping oil when prices are falling. Use the green argument, use the Islam is crazy argument but do something to nudge us away.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-04-10 12:36  

#4  The way to bring global jihad, to a screeching halt, to send the would-be lords and masters of the world back to sitting in their tents and beating their women, would be to cease buying oil -- any at all.

Or to just take the oil, pack the squatters off to their desert tents, and sell the crude at a discount to ourselves and at a premium to our enemies. Use some of the proceeds to fund massive endowments to Ivy League and equivalent institutions and suggest funding will be withdrawn unless the anti-Semites, Truthers and Communists are fired.

End of problem.
Posted by: Excalibur   2008-04-10 08:59  

#3  Buried in the tome of our record, if not burned by the Socialist orthodoxy that permeates our institutions of 'learning', is the story of a hundred years of confronting tribes and the vagaries of conflict and peace in our growth as a nation. The Socialist Guilt War against the West and particularly America doesn't permit the telling of the century of constant warfare and nation building that gives us the bounties and freedoms that not only do Americans enjoy, but most democratic people in the world. Had there not been an America with the ability to apply all of its resources in those critical years of the 20th Century, the authoritarians and totalitarians certainly would have dominated the landscape by the close of that century, which. of course, the socialist believed they were entitled to.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-04-10 08:36  

#2  I want a permanent US presence in the Middle East. But I don't want ground troops dodging IED traps. Neither does Senator McCain. Last week he used a Letterman appearance to attack alleged Rumsfeld' "mismanagement" of the Iraq war. Frankly, McCain will produce a position that will gather broad bi-partisan support, and the troops will support him as well. Hardline GOP might not like to hear explicit or tacit attacks on a sitting GOP President, but McCain has no plans of lying his way into the White House. The Surge was Act 2; watch for Act 3.
Posted by: McZoid   2008-04-10 05:04  

#1  HMMMMM, that reminds me - a "weak horse".

Compare wid WAFF.com Poster Thread > AMERICA MUST BE BALKANIZED! And not necess due to being defeated by Radical Islam-only either.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-10 01:00  

00:00