Iraq has been the central front in the war between Modern Civilization and totalitarian Islam since the United States and its coalition partners invaded. The purpose of the invasion was primarily to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East, decrease the risk of Iraq expanding or recreating their WMD programs (the jury is still out on the whereabouts or existence of any Iraqi WMD but that is not germane to this issue at the moment, in any event), and present a third option to the world's Muslims, most of whom have lived their entire lives under authoritarian or totalitarian rule, either secular or theocratic in nature. Democratizing Iraq was often posed as an after-thought, but it was and is a crucial aspect of the larger war against Islamofascism.
The destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque Samarra has been the latest and perhaps most effective, attempt yet to ignite civil war in Iraq. Bill Roggio suggests that the next few days will be key. In Looking for Signs of Civil War in Iraq, he offers a variety of guideposts by which to determine the likely direction of future events and concludes:
Iraq has yet to encounter any of the problems stated above. The Sunni led Iraqi Accordance Front has suspended talks to form a government, but have not withdrawn from the political process. The Iraqi Security Forces have taken appropriate measures and suspended all leaves, but there are no indications they are cooperating with militias or abetting the violence in any way. There have been both encouraging statements by the Shiite and Sunni leaders. There also have been some irresponsible statements from the politicians on all sides, but this can be understood as tensions are running high. The Shiites are devastated by the destruction of the Golden Mosque and the Sunnis are horrified at the retaliation attacks. What is critical is what is said and done by these politicians in the next few days and weeks.
For the Islamofascists of all flavors and varieties, civil war in Iraq is the optimal outcome at this point. A successful, Democratic, third option in Iraq, would be devastating to them. They have discovered they cannot win in a direct encounter with American forces. They know that the Democrats are calling for retreat and that with an election coming up in November, the Bush administration needs to begin withdrawing troops or risk losing control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. For these reasons, alliances of convenience between the Persian Shia of Iran and (some of) the Sunni Arabs of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq are obvious developments. All have an interest in furthering chaos in Iraq and are doing their worst to push their agenda.
Why should any American care that Iraq falls into chaos? If they are so undisciplined and uncivilized that they cannot and will not control their most base tribal impulses, why should we expend blood and money to save them form themselves?
GM Roper inadvertently supplied an answer yesterday, in his very interesting and important post Are We Fighting Islam Or Islamofascism? There Is A Difference! In this post, GM responds to a posting from Olaf at extrablog, a German blogger who asks, in English:
Would you try to enrage the Ummah, all the Muslim communities in the world, if your brother, your husband or your friend was in Iraq or in Afghanistan?
He quite rightly wants to remind us that the war on terror is not the same as a war on Islam and hopes all can support the troops. GM responds to Olaf's use of the term "Ummah":
First, let me say that I have the utmost respect for anyone's faith if that faith is expressed in terms of kindness, charity and love. I also expect that the faith of others will exhibit the same tolerance for my faith, and the faith of still others.
Having said that, let us take a look at the Ummah. The Ummah is described as the worldwide community of those of the Moslem faith and the question directly asks would I deliberately insult the worldwide community of Muslims if I had a relative or friend fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. The underlying question is will the Muslim faithful harm my relatives or friends if they are offended by me. There in lies the threat. If insulted, will my friends/family be harmed by those who are insulted? Those are the terms of the debate. Do we knuckle down to the threat of violence by a so called community of believers?
GM then lays out an excellent rationale for why he concludes that his problem is not with Islam, but with Islamofascism:
I have no quarrel with Islam. My quarrel is with any Muslim that is not willing to give the same respect that he or she demands. My quarrel is with those that believe that it is ok to toss out death sentences against those that do not cower in fear of the threat of violence. My quarrel is with Islamofascism. There really is a difference.
Isn't this the crux of the problem? Are we fighting a vicious and fanatical, though small, percentage of the Muslim Ummah or are we fighting the Ummah? At the moment, it is safe to say that most Muslims are sitting on the side lines. They have not had to make their "Forced Choice" and it is in our interest to defer the test until we have a third option to offer. That is why success is so important. On a "Forced Choice" test which has only two choices, the Ummah or the West, 99% of the Muslim world will choose the Ummah. That is just how things work in a tribal society (and humans are nothing if not tribal!) We need to change the parameters of the test if we do not want 1.3 billion Muslims to be our enemies. I have no doubt that we would win such a war, unless we chose to lose it by allowing the left wing elites to determine the outcome, but the cost in lives lost will make WWII look like a skirmish.
This should always be kept in mind when discussing pulling out of the UAE ports deal (a humiliating slap to a "shame" culture) or the Cartoon Intifada (where our MSM seem to be supporting the very fascists who threaten them; they enhance the Islamists' status by their appeasement) or any of the other issues that are sure to crop up and will be skillfully used by the Islamists and their "useful idiots" in the West.
The alternative to the current efforts is being foreshadowed by events in Israel and Kurdistan, and that is my area of interest for tomorrow.
Update: The framing of the Ports deal story as America against the Muslim world has already begun. Marc Schulman has details at Arab Media on the Dubai Port Deal.
Recent Comments