Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

If Michael Yon is correct and I do not disagree with him THEN one logical corollary is that ISLAM itself is not the enemy. Every anti-AQ Iraqi Yon describes is a Muslim, right?

This report also shows that these Iraqi Muslims DO NOT crave a global caliphate.

If the Right were to spend more energy shouting down people like Fletcher Christian who say Islam is the enemy then more on the Left would be supportive of staying.

If the people of Baqubah do not desire a global caliphate or dhimmitude (and the loss of fingers for smoking) STOP using that threat to justify Gitmo and warrantless wiretaps and waterboarding and more of the Left will support staying in Iraq.

= = =

I support staying in Iraq longer IF we get a new quarterback or pitcher who won't FUBAR things so badly.

= = =

Also, if we are not to abandon the "people of Baqubah" we need more infantry in theater.

Al Qaeda moved in AFTER we cleared the region and handed off security to the Iraqi army.

If the people of Baqubah do not trust the Iraqi army to protect them, WE need to send many more soldiers. Not enough US troops in theater to win the nation-building stage. I've been saying that for years.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 07:31 AM

I've often wondered over the last year, whether we had to "lose" parts of Iraq to AQ in order to gain them for good later. That's certainly not a strategy I'd like to actively pursue--the price, as noted, is extremely high on the innocent--but it does seem to be an unintentionally effective one.

Which makes you wonder what AQ is thinking, at a strategic level. Indiscriminate carnage alone may win them accolades in the press, but it won't get them over the hump from terrorist group to caliphate.

Posted by Big D at July 6, 2007 07:34 AM

Bill, just once in a while, we wish you'd post things that make sense, and follow logically from the post, or at least have a complete syllogism.

Just for instance, I don't know anyone who claims that Gitmo is necessary because the people in Anbar want a Caliphate. I just shake my head at such idiotic strawmen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 07:35 AM

The problem is, that in the olden days, centuries ago, it did, and they're kind of stuck in the past. But then, there was no "Al Ameriki" tribe to stop them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 07:37 AM

"If the Right were to spend more energy shouting down people like Fletcher Christian who say Islam is the enemy then more on the Left would be supportive of staying."

You don't seriously expect me to believe that hogwash, do you? "Spend more energy" shouting down a relative handful of folks and just like magic the Left will begin singing Onward Christian Soldiers? Kowtow to PCness a little more by excommunicating the most offensive, and Pelosi and Reid would support fighting AQ to the end?

Baloney.

Posted by Big D at July 6, 2007 07:40 AM

Rand, is your goal to:

a) persuade the Left to stay in Iraq, or

(b) use the Iraq war to crush them (us)?

If its (a) I am willing to help and I will offer suggestions on how to persuade the Left since I believe a very good liberal case can be made to not abandon the people of Baqubah.

If it is (b) then I assert that the American Right is a much larger threat to the American Spirit of 1776 and the American strain of the Anglosphere than the global jihadists who are (for the most part) incompetent losers if we set aside one particular sucker punch on 9/11.

Agree that American Left and Right must co-exist in peace and share power and I am content.

= = =

MICHAEL YON'S report shows us that only a tiny handful of nut-jobs crave the caliphate and it also shows that the Iraqi army cannot be counted on to protect the people of Baqubah.

Argue that we are supporting MUSLIMS against AQ and drop the generalized anti-Islam rhetoric and more on the Left will support staying in Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 07:46 AM

Big D, Bill has a point. The right is obsessed with linking Islam to Islamic terrorism. Or even see the many posts here from Rand.

In the end only Islam can counter Islamic terror. That's what is happening in Baqubah, and it would probably happen no matter whether we were there or not.

After all, as Mac often says, They are the same as Us. So why would they want to live a Jihad?

What would really help is if we had large numbers of Islamic troops supporting us.

Posted by Offside at July 6, 2007 07:48 AM

Link arms and sing "Onward Christian Soldiers?" I think not.

A campaign to spread global secular humanism in which freedom of religion was a cornerstone? Sure, I'll sign up for that.

We can call it the "Agnostic Jihad"

I'd even support the extension of Russell Kirk conservatism expressed thusly by the Cato Institute:

That conservatives were willing to strengthen the powers of the presidency even when the office was occupied by their political enemy shows principle of a sort, but it’s unclear why it’s a conservative principle. Far more than liberals, conservatives recognize the imperfectability of human nature, and, taking man for what he is, have generally supported restraints on the concentration of power. Russell Kirk was no libertarian, but on this point, he and most of the postwar conservative movement stood with Jefferson: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” As Kirk put it:
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order.

Do conservatives still hold to that wisdom? Evidence that they do is difficult to discern. They spent much of the ’90s trying to convince the country that the nation’s highest office had been seized by a terribly unscrupulous, venal man, a man who would stop at nothing to retain power. And they’ve spent much of the current decade trying to tear down checks on that office’s power, all the while with another Clinton warming up in the on-deck circle.

True, one of the leading conservative think tanks in D.C. still offers a Russell Kirk lecture. In 2006, the speaker was the legal academy’s most prominent advocate of presidential war and unbridled executive power, John C. Yoo.

Link

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 07:51 AM

To be clear on this last point: I do fear Hillary Clinton coming to possess all those new powers of the Presidency which George W. Bush has been eagerly expanding in the name of "fighting" the loser wannabes of the global jihad.

I guess that makes me a Russell Kirk / William F. Buckley variety of conservative.

Wow! The cognitive dissonance is mind blowing. :-)

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 07:58 AM

Argue that we are supporting MUSLIMS against AQ and drop the generalized anti-Islam rhetoric and more on the Left will support staying in Iraq.

I do argue that, Bill. But I don't believe you.

This isn't about "hate speech" against Muslims, by me or anyone else. It's about a significant percentage of your political party that (as former Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick famously said) always blames America first.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 08:00 AM

"His opinion, shared by others present, is that al Qaeda came to Baqubah and united many of the otherwise independent criminal gangs.

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people."

This has never been about religion Bill, it has always been about evil men, harib, hiding behind a religion. These are gangsters and the sooner they're killed the sooner out soldiers can come home.

Posted by JJS at July 6, 2007 08:05 AM

Rand, there are numerous interlocking points here and "hate speech" against Islam is very far down my list of concerns

I see the goal as being to assimilate Islam (and ALL of the world religions) under the aegis of a global secular humanistic umbrella that preserves freedom of religion for all who renounce violence as a tool of conversion. Including freedom of religion for Muslims to stay Muslim.

Al Qaeda and the global jihadists must be defeated. No argument.

I simply believe that a global secular society and the fruits of a genuine 21st century economy are so tempting that only a tiny tiny fringe will remain loyal to the dream of a caliphate once they see what the caliphate truly represents.

Flooding Iran with consumer goods and western commercial media (good and bad together - the Chicago Symphony and Brittney Spears) will undermine the mullahs more effectively than JDAMs.

But for domestic politics there also is the Russell Kirk point:

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands.

Global jihad can be defeated without enlarging the power of the Presidency and therefore a true conservative loyal to the vision of 1776 and 1787 must oppose expansions of Presidential power in the supposed name of temporary emergency. A candidate who says that we cannot abandon the people Michael Yon writes about and who also says that he does not need expanded powers to accomplish that will unite Left and Right for our continued presence in Iraq.

And if I quote extensively from Kirk and Cato how can I be accused of being a moonbat?

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 08:23 AM

Sorry, Bill. You can quote whoever you want, but if you really believe that the "power of the presidency has been enlarged" under this president, you are a moonbat, with no knowledge whatsoever of history (just one hint: Abe Lincoln and habeas corpus).

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 08:31 AM

JJS, I agree with you, here:

This has never been about religion Bill, it has always been about evil men, harib, hiding behind a religion. These are gangsters and the sooner they're killed the sooner out soldiers can come home.

But to accomplish that we need MORE David Wallachs, many MORE David Wallachs who can speak Arabic.

Also, note how Al Qaeda recruited. The solution is nation building. Give those boys real jobs and hope for the future and $100 a month and some RPGs to shoot will be less attractive.

Also, note that this region had previously been secured and had been handed off to the Iraqi Army. If the Iraqi Army is not ready to keep AQ out, we need MORE light infantry in theater to hold the regions we have cleared.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 08:32 AM

Well then, I guess the Cato Istitute has been seized by moonbats as well:

"[Conservatives] spent much of the ’90s trying to convince the country that the nation’s highest office had been seized by a terribly unscrupulous, venal man, a man who would stop at nothing to retain power. And they’ve spent much of the current decade trying to tear down checks on that office’s power, all the while with another Clinton warming up in the on-deck circle."

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 08:36 AM

Well then, I guess the Cato Istitute has been seized by moonbats as well

In some ways, it has, yes.

Cato's good on economic policy. On national security...not so much.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 08:42 AM

BW: "I support staying in Iraq longer IF we get a new quarterback or pitcher who won't FUBAR things so badly."

We have a new QB, his name is Petraeus. Your parties leadership does not support him. And if you're really referring to the team manager rather than the QB (IE POTUS) then please tell me who in your party qualifies?

BW: "(b) use the Iraq war to crush them (us)?"

Please Bill, get a clue. Your option (b) is precisely what YOUR party is trying to do, with the aid of the MSM, to the GOP! Thus your conclusion that the largest threat to US security is the party that would do such a thing, except it is your party doing it.

BW: "Also, if we are not to abandon the "people of Baqubah" we need more infantry in theater."

Well General White, when did you earn your commission? I do think a REAL General, namely Petraeus, is more qualified to make such decisions. And the evidence shows that he does know what he is doing. And we would probably know a lot more about what he was doing RIGHT if there were more Mike Yon type's and fewer Dan Rather types.

Truth is your party doesn't care one thing about the people of Baqubah, they simply want to run as fast from Iraq as possible, blame it all on the GOP and reap the political benefits.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 09:16 AM

Cecil,

I extend an offer so we can discuss how to unite our country in support of the people of Baqubah (and by extension ALL Muslims who do not wish to be ruled by a Salafi or Wahabi caliphate) and you slap my hand away and say we simply need to get with the program and line up behind our current POTUS.

Such a response is exactly why the GOP is in national free fall, from a political perspective.

For better or worse, the American Left and the American Right will simply need to learn to get along since US politics is like a pendulum. Push hard to the Right and we will swing back Left. Push hard to the Left and we will swing back Right.

And, whatever powers Bush and Cheney accumulate for the Executive -- signing statements, unitary executive theory and so, forth -- will be possessed by people like Hillary Clinton at some point in our future.

Thus, the premise of the American regime, both in 1776 and 1787, requires that all accumulations of power be checked.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 09:49 AM

General Petreaus may well need more time AND more men and we (together with Iraqis fed up with AQ) can eradicate al Qaeda.

Remove the Mookie Sadr faction and the al-Hakim faction? Not likely.

Link

Petraeus has been careful about claiming success, or even optimism, in the nearly five months since he returned to Baghdad. He has said a military victory isn't possible, that Iraq can be stabilized only through a political solution that honors all sides in the conflict — Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. But his own staff is skeptical that a political deal is still possible. "This is going to be the first Shi'ite-dominated Arab government. Period," a senior military official told me. "And the Shi'ites are not inclined to be generous toward the Sunnis." The fact is, most of the important decisions in Iraq are now beyond American control.

We also do not have spare combat brigades to rotate in and maintain our current 20 brigade force structure when its time for the current units to rotate out:

There is another clock, not often mentioned, that sits in the Pentagon. It is the Broken Army clock, the service timeline for an exhausted force. Petraeus and his staff were deeply concerned when rumors of another tour extension, from the current 15 months for soldiers, spread in mid-June. "It would be a last resort," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters — but troop morale is so iffy that Petraeus quietly urged his commanders to "get the word out" to their soldiers that the extension rumors were false.
According to the Broken Army clock, troop levels will begin to wane in March 2008, no matter what Congress decides in September; the current 20 brigade combat teams will be reduced to 15 by August 2008. There is growing speculation in the military that Bush will try to pre-empt the Petraeus testimony by announcing a gradual drawdown from 20 to 15 combat brigades later this summer. "As if that isn't going to happen anyway," a senior officer told me. "But it may give us some political breathing space" — that is, it may subvert the Democrats' calls for a more rapid withdrawal — "if the President makes a big deal of announcing we're drawing down."

Counterinsurgency is a marathon not a sprint and we cannot maintain 20 brigades indefinitely because they are not available.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 10:10 AM

BAQUBAHA or BAQUBAH?

Maybe it was a joke, as in BAQUBA-Ha! ?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at July 6, 2007 10:20 AM

Truth is your party doesn't care one thing about the people of Baqubah, they simply want to run as fast from Iraq as possible, blame it all on the GOP and reap the political benefits.

I'll have to partially disagree Cecil. They do care about what happens to people, but since the people are in a different country and can't vote here, then politics comes first. As for running and blaming, you're spot on.

it has always been about evil men, harib, hiding behind a religion.

Bingo

Posted by Mac at July 6, 2007 10:32 AM

If there are any left who believe we are the enemy of the Iraqi people, or that we should leave immediately...

And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

...remember what we would be leaving them to. How anyone can say that the US doesn't have the moral high ground for what we're doing is stunning.

Posted by Mac at July 6, 2007 10:36 AM

BW: "I extend an offer so we can discuss how to unite our country....."

OH please Bill, I hope you don't really believe that is what you were doing. Extend an offer by ONCE AGAIN beating the dead horse of who FUBAR'd what and when? Running on about how we need a new QB. Claiming the American Right is trying to use Iraq to defeat the left when the truth is the exact opposite? Where do you get these ideas?

Well guess what we are STUCK with GW Bush for another 18 months and we are in a war that we need to be fighting and winning NOW. Like I stated a few days ago Bill we all know that Iraq has been mishandled, but the time for placing blame and pointing fingers is not now. We've already done enough of that and as a result replaced the SEDEF and Commander in Iraq yet you democrats are not happy, you still want to drone on about Bush.

Bush is not the problem, Al Qaeda killing children in Iraq is the problem. You have not written ONE word here condemning the atrocity related in Yons latest post, but you were certainly eager to get in another jab at Bush and the right. This is the exactly what your parties leadership is doing on a national level, they can't concentrate on winning the war due to their spending so much time of wanting to quit the war and blame Bush!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 11:15 AM

Cecil, Domeneci has joined the Surrender Monkeys. At this rate of desertion , does it make more sense to figure out how we can get out of Iraq while maintaining our national security interests? Would it not make sense to find a bipartisan way to do this?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at July 6, 2007 12:51 PM

Yes, Domenici's constituents need to be talking to him. This is foolish. He's likely doing it out of ignorance. If any Republican senator is having such thoughts, he needs to be reading Michael Yon's reports, to take heart. There is a fundamental difference between most (not, for example, including Lieberman) Democrat politicians and Republican politicians. The former have many reasons for getting out of the war (because there base is intrinsically anti-war, particularly when a Republican is in charge), where as Republicans are (at least in theory) more attuned to national defense. When one starts to slide, because of perceived (whether real or not) concern about constituent pressure, a Republican can fight back with reality. Unfortunately, a Democrat (again, using Joe Lieberman as an example) has no such opportunity, because "war is wrong, and bad for children and other living things."

(Well, unless it can distract a Democrat president from adverse news stories, as the aspirin bombing did for Clinton...)

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 01:06 PM

Bill (and T'n'T), do you think these folks are more likely to vote Republican, or Democrat (assuming, of course, that they vote at all, and not for some other fringe party)?

Assuming you get the answer right, that is the problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 01:31 PM

Zombietime.com? Looks like a parody site to me. My guess is some some bored RedState computer geek with spare time and possibly some Photoshopping skills. So, what's the question again?

Anyway, recent news includes the fact that Ron Paul has more campaign money on hand than John McCain.

Also, a recent poll reveals that 45% of Americans want George Bush impeached while 46% say no with the rest answering something else. Bill Clinton never did that badly in the impeachment polls.

54% want Cheney impeached.

The Bush approval ratings have also hit a new low.

The Maine Senators are also showing signs of going wobbly on Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 02:19 PM

To the extent zombietime is real, I betcha there are more followers of Scientology in America than supporters of that art exhibit.

America is home to some extreme whackos. Film at 11.

And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Democratic party.

Posted by at July 6, 2007 02:23 PM

Zombietime.com? Looks like a parody site to me.

Yes, Bill, I'm sure that denial is much more comfortable for you.

Also, a recent poll reveals that...

I note you don't cite a poll to support this insanity.

Was it an Internet poll at Keith Olbmermann's site?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 6, 2007 02:31 PM

TNT: "get out of Iraq while maintaining our national security interests?"

Non sequitur. How can abandoning the central fight against Al Qaeda be in the national security interest of the United States?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 02:33 PM

American Research Group

Scroll down a few results.

Cecil, if Pakistan's President Musharraf were to be killed or deposed, Pakistan would instantly dwarf Iraq as the focal point of the threat against us, because Pakistan already has deployed functional nuclear weapons and their intelligence services are riddled with al Qaeda sympathizers.

Michael Yon's reports actually reassure me that Iraq is not on the verge of becoming an al Qaeda safe haven.

Posted by Bill White at July 6, 2007 02:44 PM

IF Bill, IF. As my father used to say "if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he jumped".

How about let's worry about what is happening NOW rather than some hypothetical.

As for Yons reassurances, what do you think Yons reports would look like if your democrats succeed in withdrawing the troops in there upcoming attempt? Yes, they're going to try again within a week or so. And it isn't just "politico" saying it now.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 04:05 PM

How can abandoning the central fight against Al Qaeda be in the national security interest of the United States?

Allowing and enabling others more competent of doing so for the long haul to do so. For example the Shiites. Unless we want to stay forever. As Yon himself has pointed out AQ wears out its welcome in about a max of 2 years, irrespective of what we are doing.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at July 6, 2007 04:16 PM

To the extent zombietime is real

The left would get them to vote. Death is no bar to my vote...

Posted by Mac at July 6, 2007 05:03 PM

TNT "Allowing and enabling others more competent of doing so for the long haul to do so. For example the Shiites. "

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There is no Iraqi force capable of standing on it's on yet. If we leave there will be a blood bath and the only winners will be Iran and Al Qaeda. Evidently that prospect has absolutely no meaning at all to you and the DNC.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 05:38 PM

Bill, why shouldn't most Americans support impeachment of Bush? The democrat party has the vast majority of the media in their back pocket and they spread the BDS propaganda on a daily basis. Is that not OBVIOUS to every one yet?

The American people, sadly, are largely ignorant of anything that goes on in the world other than what the media spoon feeds them. You don't believe me? Just ask some random people who Ahmadinejad is, ask them who Petraeus is, or Musharraf, or ask them to explain the difference between a Shia and a Sunni. Ask them who Joe Wilson is. The majority will not know any of these people/things, but they will have an opinion about George W. Bush. You have to wonder how they develop an opinion of Bush with so little knowledge of the world. It is simple; the mainstream media propaganda tells them what they should think of Bush.

I have yet to personally meet ANYONE who can rationally tell me why they think Bush should be impeached, they all have a hatred based in lies that have been spread by the the DNC/MSM (as if there were a difference in the two).

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 06:41 PM

There is no Iraqi force capable of standing on it's on yet.

Yes, there isn't because we are there. Any force propped up by us will be always a force propped up by us, and never a genuine Iraqi force respected and wanted by the Iraqis. You seem to miss this point. You also seem to miss the fact that the Iraqis call our troops "The Jews." Do you understand what that tells us about who they think we are? And what the prospects of a pro-American Iraq is right now?

I don't have a problem with us propping them up at a distance, giving them anything they need other than nukes.

Unless you mean to have us there for ever. Or until the Iraqis convert to Christianity or Judaism en masse!

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at July 6, 2007 07:12 PM

TNT: "Yes, there isn't because we are there."

That is simplistic and ignorant. Do you think so little of the skill and professionalism of the US Military that you believe the Iraqis could develop like skills overnight if we simply got out of their way and let them?

TNT: "Unless you mean to have us there for ever."

Again, simplistic. You see no options other than leave now or stay forever.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 6, 2007 09:25 PM

Allowing and enabling others more competent of doing so for the long haul to do so. For example the Shiites.

The Shiites? What's your basis for suggesting they have been fighting Al Qaeda? Effectively? Over the long haul?

Posted by Leland at July 7, 2007 12:39 PM

Post a comment