Beg to differ. Dawa is not nuts. They’re winning on every front. About two thirds of the population was Shi’a before all this nonsense started. As you point out, the Sunni power base is seriously diminished since then - a lot of their best people have left the country. The only thing Maliki needs to do is find a reasonable way to split the country between Shiites and Kurds, and he can rule indefinitely with a super-majority. He can scare the living daylights out of foreign powers by threatening to offer the Kurds independence - better than any nuclear bomb as a threat. And he will be able to count on strong support from Iran. In the end, the commitment of the West to democracy means that the Shiites just can’t lose. Certainly not now, after they’ve been succesful in reducing the Sunni population further.

This was all rather obvious from the start. Democracy in Iraq means creating another Shiite-run, oil-rich state.

I don’t think that it is a falsehood. I think that you are being about as rational as a 9/11 truther here. I think that the desire to control access to the oil reserves of Iraq and indeed any aspect of our interest in the Middle East is driven exclusively by oil these days. If it weren’t for the oil the whole place would be a meaningless desert full of wandering tribesmen.

“And don’t forget, what the Muslim fundamentalist despises the most is the social and moral debauchery of modern liberalism. ”

Who cares? I’m in about as much danger from Muslim fundamentalists taking over my country as you are. Ie none whatsoever. Get a sense of proportion, please…

I mean, honestly, how do you see the invasion and conversion of the country going? At what point does the police force enforce Islamic morality? Where does the army of Islamic warriors come from?

“Where’s the outrage from leftist feminists and militant homosexuals toward the Muslim predation which increasingly targets people like them when they would be the first targets under an Islamic global caliphate?”

There’s never going to be a global caliphate. I deplore their hatred of homosexuals and women. Again, I presume that this goes without saying. Maybe we all need to preface our posts with disclaimers. “People are responsible for their own actions” “I desipe people who hate other for their race, gender, religion or sexuality” “I want everyone to be at peace but failing that I am willing to defend myself”. Do I need to carry on or can we assume that I am not lusting for the glory of Bin Laden?

“Instead these liberals consider President Bush and American conservatives their first and foremost enemies – an “enemy” that has exercised EXTREME tolerance toward those who have coarsened the public debates with half-truths and failed social prescriptions, and degraded American traditions and the social structure of this country with their destructive attempts at social engineering for the last fifty years. It’s true and you know it.”

If you don’t regard the government with extreme scepticism then I don’t think you quite caught the whole idea behind your own country. Ditching Habeas Corpus, expanding detention without trial, increased surveillance, torture. These things are not the signs of an Executive that is headed in the right direction. How will you feel when these powers are wielded by Democrats? Or by anyone else who runs the country in the future. Freedoms are easily given up and hard won.

I don’t get how people can’t see this stuff. “EXTREME tolerance” eh? As opposed to what?

No, the quote is. The reasoning in the call to arms simply places those who act above those who criticise those who act. It presumes “Worthy action” without making any attempt to tell you how to tell apart worth action from unworthy action. I would suggest that attempting something that has massive potential negative consequences and dubious returns is the definition of unworthy action, for all the claimed heroism of the actor.

” if you want to falsely equate taking out a despotic regime with terrorist attacks on a civilian target, then go ahead and live in that world of twisted nuance.”

Of course I don’t. The quote does though.

“As to your inability to blame the real perps who are blowing up moderate Muslims, then you’re the perfect apologist for jihadists.”

People who blow up moderate Muslims are to blame for blowing up moderate Muslims. Happy? I haven’t said it because it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. I presumed it didn’t need saying. If it’ll make you happy;

“People are responsible for their own actions”

OK?

“As you well know, close to 98% of all moderate Muslims taken out since 9/11 has been the result of Muslim jihadists and that point should be made over and over to the “moderate” Muslim world. ”

As you well know, that number is plucked out of the air. Nobody over there is reliably keeping track of who is killing who.

“Your kneejerk reaction in wanting to blame-Bush/blame-America/blame-the-troops by claiming we’re inciting jihadists to commit such heinous crimes against their own brethren is precisely the kind of attitude jihadists want to instill in their useful idiots in the free world.”

I don’t blame Bush for car bombers. I blame the car bombers for being ar bombers. I blame Bush for his part in making being a car bomber both more attractive and easier. I don’t really blame the troops for shooting up cars because they thought that they might be suicide bombers, though recntly revealed attitudes amongst them casts some doubt on that position. I blame politicians for putting soldiers in a position where they will inevitably shoot innocent civilians.

Most of all I blame Bush for being as strategically deaf as a post, incompetent and just generally incapable of learning from experience. I mean honestly, this war has been and will continue to be for a long time, a strategic disaster. Surely this is indisputable by now?

“That’s like claiming the reason for gang violence and murder in America is because the existence of law enforcement incites them to do such things as blowback. Not a perfect analogy but a good one nonetheless.”

Expand the analogy and you might end up with something. If the police and the state create a situation where you cannot trust the police, cannot protect your own property, see kidnap as a routine part of life, and have no way of making any money to feed your family, then you would have a state effectively manufacturing criminals from non-criminals.

People are responsible for their actions, that’s sure enough, but when your options are limited to poverty, instability and terror or joining the gang and being somebody it is hardly surprising that some people choose the latter.

Mr. Moran,

Up to know I’ve been a frequent reader, but now I am afraid you have fallen for the classic leftist/movon/democratic line that somehow this is all Bush’s fault.

Promoting democracy anywhere, anytime is nothing to be ashamed of. Personal dream? My God, if that’s the “failure” that Bush gets the noose for, then that is all the proof that I need that he will certainly be remembered, albiet in the distance future, as one of the most admirable presidents in history.

Buwahahahaha. How can “moderate” Muslims not help but think that when people on your side of the aisle have been ranting “No War For Oil”! People like that have to at least accept responsibility for confirming in the Muslim mind this utter falsehood. Now I’m not saying that concerns for the oil markets don’t come into play at some level, but c’mon NO WAR FOR OIL? Of course Muslims are going to be even more convinced of this simplistic “truthiness” when the radical left continues playing into the hands of sophisticated jihadists who now realize they have strange bedfellows (the left) who can help them defeat Bush and conservative America before making mincemeat of their good buddy lefties. Isn’t this always what leftist regimes and Muslim thugocracies do once the main enemy is defeated, you get rid of the useful idiots. And don’t forget, what the Muslim fundamentalist despises the most is the social and moral debauchery of modern liberalism. Where’s the outrage from leftist feminists and militant homosexuals toward the Muslim predation which increasingly targets people like them when they would be the first targets under an Islamic global caliphate? Instead these liberals consider President Bush and American conservatives their first and foremost enemies - an “enemy” that has exercised EXTREME tolerance toward those who have coarsened the public debates with half-truths and failed social prescriptions, and degraded American traditions and the social structure of this country with their destructive attempts at social engineering for the last fifty years. It’s true and you know it.

As to your inability to blame the real perps who are blowing up moderate Muslims, then you’re the perfect apologist for jihadists. As you well know, close to 98% of all moderate Muslims taken out since 9/11 has been the result of Muslim jihadists and that point should be made over and over to the “moderate” Muslim world. Your kneejerk reaction in wanting to blame-Bush/blame-America/blame-the-troops by claiming we’re inciting jihadists to commit such heinous crimes against their own brethren is precisely the kind of attitude jihadists want to instill in their useful idiots in the free world. That’s like claiming the reason for gang violence and murder in America is because the existence of law enforcement incites them to do such things as blowback. Not a perfect analogy but a good one nonetheless.

That’s just an argument for action rather than inaction. By this argument, the 9/11 hijackers are more worthy than the crowds chanting “Death to America” because they got off their backsides and did something brave about their beliefs. That’s a rather Viking morality I’d say.

The switch point in the quote is here “who spends himself in a worthy cause”. It begs the question “What is a worthy cause?” The only way to work out what is a worthy cause is by thinking, not acting and the only way to produce clear thinking is to embrace criticism.

Another flaw in this rousing call to arms is that, by the reasoning presented, if someone puts you all in when you have nothing but a small pair, you should call without hesitation everytime, and ignore the poker books because the day belongs to those who act. That’s a good way to lose.

“But I believe its also true that many Americans refuse to see the elephant in the room, that is unless Muslim moderates begin to “take back their religion” as they promised they would do, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to flourish and continuing defining greater Islam in more fascist terms.”

I’m only a lowly critic, but I think I would question whether the best way to ensure the victory of the moderates is to blow up large numbers of largely moderate Muslims, run an occupation that, even if not an accurate impression, leaves millions of Muslims convinced that the Christans are killing them to steal their oil.

That would tend to radicalise people I would imagine.

I wonder whether our military men see the need for massive surges now, or to cut and run? We may have little choice.

Go large or go home, those were the choices.

Two years ago.

At this point 6,000 troops, or 36,000 troops are not enough.

The idea that if we tell the Iraqi’s a date we’re leaving the insurgents will just wait us out assumes the people we are fighting aren’t already prepared to wait years.

And what they are waiting for isn’t our departure, it’s the collapse of the useless regime we are propping up. It is that collapse that will force our departure.

Trent Lott and others see the handwriting on the wall. Come September it’s over.

As the National Review has said, ‘just enough to lose’ has been this administrations approach.

As some have suggested, the war in Iraq was spectacular won, now its a matter of winning the peace in a land steeped in an ideology which claims to be a “religion of peace” but has proven to be anything but that … the six Muslims plotting to attack Fort Dix is just another piece of that jigsaw puzzle.

Sure there have been missteps by this administration, just as there were missteps by FDR and his generals during World War II that cost tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of American soldiers their lives. But I believe its also true that many Americans refuse to see the elephant in the room, that is unless Muslim moderates begin to “take back their religion” as they promised they would do, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to flourish and continuing defining greater Islam in more fascist terms.

I’m sure we all have heard these words spoken by Teddy Roosevelt at one time or another in our lives, but I think it bears repeating today. I believe those Bush-bashers on the other more radical side of the aisle (not speaking of those here) need to reflect a little more about the truths contained therewithin and practice some respectful civility that can be exercised toward those who have the very difficult task of actually doing something that could lead to some kind of substantive achievement in the Middle East as opposed to anonymous hacks adopting high-minded contrarian views to justify their often quite useless Monday morning quarterbacking:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.