What democracy accomplishes in the middle east...

In August 2005, January 2006, July 2007, and January 2009 I expressed concern and dismay at US attempts to invoke “democracy” in Iraq or any Islamic nation – because the dominance of Islam prevents any ongoing success.

It appears that Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch web site, has a similar history of skepticism. He leads through the chronology that results in the most likely outcome:

"Iraq will be a colony of Iran"

Well, I hate to say I told you so, but...

June 27, 2006: "Of course, Ahmadinejad may be jumping the gun a bit as far as that is concerned, but he is certainly doing all he can to bring into being a Shi'ite client state in Iraq."

September 13, 2006: "Here we see looming in Iraq the Shi'ite client state of Iran that the U.S. has unwittingly helped put into place with its short-sighted democracy project."

October 31, 2006: "Is al-Maliki on the road to creating the Shi'ite client state that the Iranians have been trying to foster in Iraq for quite some time now?"

February 11, 2007: "Iran continues its efforts to create a Shi'ite client state in Iraq."

June 10, 2008: "Or are U.S. troops the main obstacle to Iraq's becoming a full-fledged client state of Iran?"

November 12, 2008: "Very soon now the President of the United States and the President of Iran will sit down, without preconditions, and hash this out, and clear everything up before Iraq turns fully into the Shi'ite client state that the Iranians covet."

July 1, 2009: "Their goal of creating a Shi'ite client state is closer than ever to being realized."

July 30, 2009: "Was this what we have been fighting for in Iraq all these years? An Iranian Shi'ite client state in Baghdad?"

Looks like it. But of course, the learned analysts knew better.

"Behind the Carnage in Baghdad," by David Ignatius in the Washington Post, August 25 (thanks to Kamala):

As security deteriorates in Baghdad, there's a new cause for worry: The head of the U.S.-trained Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) has quit in a long-running quarrel with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- depriving that country of a key leader in the fight against sectarian terrorism.

Gen. Mohammed Shahwani, the head of Iraqi intelligence since 2004, resigned this month because of what he viewed as Maliki's attempts to undermine his service and allow Iranian spies to operate freely. The CIA, which has worked closely with Shahwani since he went into exile in the 1990s and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars training the INIS, was apparently caught by surprise by his departure.

The chaotic conditions in Iraq that triggered Shahwani's resignation are illustrated by several recent events -- each of which suggests that without the backstop of U.S. support, Iraqi authorities are now desperately vulnerable to pressure, especially from neighboring Iran....

Iran's links with Maliki are so close, said this Iraqi intelligence source, that the prime minister uses an Iranian jet with an Iranian crew for his official travel. The Iranians are said to have sent Maliki an offer to help his Dawa Party win at least 49 seats in January's parliamentary elections if Maliki will make changes in his government that Iran wants....

Should the Americans try to restore order? The top Iraqi intelligence source answered sadly that it was probably wiser to "stay out of it and be safe." When pressed about what his country would look like in five years, absent American help, he answered bluntly: "Iraq will be a colony of Iran."

Middle East Heading South

President B. H. Obama and the Iraqi government have assured Iraq is a lost cause for the western world. This article describes how the unmotivated Iraqi government is dropping the ball on the hand-off of the US counterinsurgency initiatives. With the inevitable withdrawal of US troops in the next 18 months to 2 years, this Iraqi government predisposition to revert to the past will spell perpetual conflict and tribal anarchy until the next dictator or Sharia-endowed leader rises up.

While I'm about predicting things in the middle east, here are four more predictions that will be like watching a slow motion train wreck over the next several years:

Afghanistan: Afghanistan has already been described as Obama's Vietnam. In two years, we will tire of that mire and decide there are other actions we can take to deceive ourselves into believing that we are being productive at achieving whatever objective we have over there. Within four years, we will be out of Afghanistan whether there is lasting reduction of Al-Qaeda influence or not.

Pakistan: A nuclear-armed nation on the brink of revolution. What to do. What to do. We won't do enough. We will not safeguard the nukes. We will not prevent a radical Islamic takeover. There is now "galloping Talibanization" occurring in Pakistan. Within two years, we will resign ourselves to a west-hating controlled Pakistan who will effectively use it's nuclear power to coerce western influence-reducing concessions out of us. Obama will do whatever it takes to minimize their hatred toward us. We can expect an increasing number of Kum-bay-Yah moments from B. Hussein O. in the middle east.

Iran: The US will be effective in preventing Isreal from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. UPDATE: During todays' (Tuesday, May 18) meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama effectively neutralized any Israelli action against Iran by guaranteeing another 8 months of talk with Iran. See here and here. Here is one example of Obama's arm twisting. If Obama simply wanted notice from Israel to ready or protect American troops in the area, he would have said this privately - as in "Top Secret". This public demand was a political move to further distance himself from Israel and further cozy up to Muslim nations. Netanyahu will become a paper tiger. Again, within two years, we will resign ourselves to being subject to an Islamic, nuclear-armed Iran who will effectively use it's nuclear power to coerce western influence-reducing consessions out of us.

Israel: If two out of three of these predictions materialize, Israel's existence is in doubt in 4 years. Islamic dominance in Europe and the US will accelerate.

I hope I am dead wrong on all of them.

Yeah, Let's Take Our Enemies' Word for It

CNN is apparently making a big deal of this. Our troops confronted an Islamist with an AK-47 aimed at them and the troops did him in. The locals are giving conflicting testimony. Yeah, I'd go with the folks who hate us, wouldn't you?

Christian Representation in Iraqi Councils?

Increased Christian representatin on Iraqi Councils? Snowball's chance in hell.

Christians are being massacred in Iraq because they peaceably demonstrated for representation in the Iraqi government. So much for the promise of Iraqi democracy. As common sense and history should teach, there will be democracy in Iraq long enough for their leaders to fully implement Sharia law. For those not understanding that implication, Sharia law does not tolerate other religions very well.

There is a better chance that Obama will find a pro-American mentor than there is for the Iraqi government to tolerate demonstrations, never mind representation of Christians in their "democratic" government.

Democracy, by the way, is a two-edged sword: The majority can represent tyranny. Tolerance and liberty are much better ideals. But, unfortunately, the great majority of folk in Iraq are Muslim. 1,400 years of Islamic influence doesn't allow Muslims to tolerate. McCain's suggestion that it might take 100 years to achieve US objectives in Iraq might not be long enough to reverse 1,400 years of ingrained intolerance and violent habits.

We as a nation, especially our leaders, haven't yet grasped the fact that Muslims aren't Christians. They have a different value system. Their Koran is closer to our Old Testament on steroids without the New Testament. Legalism and vengence prevail. Grace, forgiveness, and tolerance are foreign to those folk. It is a safe bet that democracy is the wrong goal for us in Iraq. And I don't hold out much hope that the US will stomach devoting several hundred years of our resources to try to instill "grace, forgiveness, and tolerance" in that land.

Bush is consistent on border insecurity.

This is the situation. A bunch of Kurdish folk in the northern portions of Iraq have it in their heads that the southern part of Turkey belongs to them. So they begin infiltrating southern Turkey and act somewhat like the Sunni and Shia do...they blow up things and people inside Turkey (after all, they are all Muslim).

Silly Turkey. They get the idea in their heads that they need to put a stop to the terrorist violence from the Kurds. The only reasonable way they see of defending their southern border is to eliminate the offending Kurds at their source: inside Iraq. So Turkey announces their plan to defend their border.

True to form, "defend no border Bush" comes trotting out and cries out "No, wait! Don't defend your border! Give us some time. We'll work things out!" Bush has taken seven years in this country to work out our border problems - I hope Turkey realizes where that has gotten us. Can you imagine 12 million Kurds in southern Turkey?

What hypocisy. What a double standard. We can invade Iraq from upteen thousand miles away and it is self defense. Turkey proposes to take some troops 2 miles into Iraq to defend themselves from ongoing murder and mayhem, and it's called interference.

This irony was enough to cause me to write to the Turkey Embassy in Washington DC and cheering them on to do whatever it takes to defend their border from terrorists. I wish we would do the same in our nation!

I was torn whether to title this blog The "Leave No Terrorist Behind" Policy or "The Only Good Border is an Open Border."

Tancredo's Position on National Defense

Tom Tancredo is best known for his strong statements on behalf of secure borders and not spending taxpayer dollars supporting illegal immigrants. He also has a very rational position concerning Iraq and our national defense. Here it is...

Defense...
"In the wake of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terrorism, it has become clear that the United States is facing a new security threat. The war America is already engaged in will not be fought like the wars of the past. After witnessing the tragic terrorist attacks against the nation, it is now time to coordinate the efforts of federal, state, and local agencies to provide better homeland defense.

Tomorrow's attacker is more likely to board a commercial airliner bound for the U.S. with a tourist or student visa - or he may simply walk across our porous southern or northern border carrying a device in his backpack. These issues must be addressed.

We are, I believe, in a clash of civilizations. That clash is fought on many fronts-some military, some diplomatic, and still others, ideological. On the military front we have won two significant victories. One was in Afghanistan where we destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda's command and control network. The second victory was in Iraq where, by toppling the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and creating the embryonic infrastructure of a democracy, we set in a motion a chain of events that could lead to a major strategic advantage for us and for the West. This advantage emanates from the forced political equilibrium that can be brought to the region and Iraq itself now that Saddam has been dispatched. The deep schisms in Islam will force countries in the region to impose this equilibrium. Our continued presence in Iraq as the referee in a civil war inhibits this development.

We must take whatever steps are necessary to assure our ability to respond quickly to events in the area as the process of creating this new balance of power goes on. But the quicker that process starts, the better.

In his speech to the nation on the war in Iraq, the President said he was establishing a "November benchmark" for the Iraqis to complete the task of controlling all provinces of the country. This should be more than a benchmark. I believe it should be used as the time frame for our disengagement from Iraq. We can maintain a military presence in the area to act as a quick response force with a mission to destroy Al Qaeda elements while simultaneously aiding the new balance of power in the region to develop.

I am not alone in my thoughts about what to do in Iraq. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, in a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, concurred.

"I think it's clear that the United States has met the obligation that it incurred when it overthrew Saddam Hussein. And that's to try and provide some conditions of security for the Iraqis to determine what kind of country or what kind of society they want in the future. We have met that obligation. That obligation does not need to be extended. And this is really the last chance for them. After that, we need to pursue very narrowly what our strategic interest is. And that's making sure that terrorism doesn't find root in that country."---
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." We have purchased an opportunity for Iraq and the entire Middle East with the blood and treasure of America. It was a noble endeavor for which all who served can be immensely proud. It is now time to see if the Iraqis can take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased."

Do I think Iraq will take advantage of the opportunity and "keep" what has been so dearly purchased? Hell no, they won't. They don't have a clue. It's not that they don't have the ability. They don't have the desire. Two or ten years of US occupation will not reverse 1,500 years of uncivilized, deviant religion-based mad dog behavior. Case in point. A $50,000,000 reward has been established for the capture of Osama Bin Laden. This reward has been in effect since 2004, with no takers. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because Pakistanis and Afghans don't like money? No. It is because the zealots surrounding Bin Laden believe in their cause more than in money. If any Christian in this country felt as strongly about his faith as the Islamo fascists believe in theirs, they would be jailed for committing hate crimes. Our religions to not tolerate zealots. They are labelled intolerant bigots. We cannot fathom being as zealous for our faith in the west as most radical Muslims are about theirs. As long as this nation, our leaders, do not understand that distinction, and they don't, we have no more business being in Iraq.

We are not there to "win" (whatever that is). We are there to sap the vitality and morale out of our own armed forces - or so it seems. I agree with those who are tired of the rhetoric of our president when on one hand he claims how critically important it is for our nation to win this war in Iraq, yet for the past two years he had not shown a strong will to win by committing the resources necessary to complete our mission. As in Vietnam, our troops are hamstrung by politically correct strategic and tactical constraints. Some of our troops fear killing the enemy because they may get charged with a crime, as some of our soldiers have. We don't understand the enemy. We do not allow ourselves a level playing field. We will lose doing what we're doing. Stepping back from this battle does not mean we lose the war. It means we come up with more intelligent, better informed methods, and hopefully, a stronger will to be effective.

What "Support the War" Meant to Me - in retrospect

Two years ago, this, in a few words, is what "Support the War" meant to me: go in - eliminate Saddam and his command and control apparatus - check everywhere for purported WMDs - get out. If WMD's are later interpreted as al-Qaeda, then our current level of effort and strategy have failed and will fail. The undeniable "civil war" between Sunni and Shia was going on since well before the US arrived. Saddam merely suppressed it. We don't have the will or insight to effectively suppress the fighting rabid dogs that Saddam had. We have no business being there anymore. We need to learn tons more about our enemy before we commit continuing and increasingly misdirected resources toward the fight. The worn belief that we will have left a nation in tatters and "someone else" will fill the vacuum as an excuse to remain is unhelpful and irrelevant. That attitude is just part of our unhealthy national "bleeding heart" syndrome - our liberal and ego-centric belief that we are responsible for all the worlds ills.

When we feel our national security is threatened, we need to do what we do best: Go in, get it done, and get out. Lingering around to patch up the mess, most of it what we did NOT create, is just feeling too guilty for our own good.

National Priorities - We've Got It Backwards...

OK...I think I've had enough. I finally realize that Bush and much of Congress have our national priorities backwards.

Priority One: We need to learn how to protect our own borders (seaports, coastline, airports, Canadian and Mexican border) before we can even pretend to do Priority Two: Protect Iraq borders.

Our borders are simple and straightforward to defend compared to Iraqi borders. The distinction? - US citizens or non-US citizens. Clear cut. Process those who want to come in according to our existing laws. Enforce the process.

Iraq on the other hand is 1,000 times more complex. They have porous borders with Iran, Syria, Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and Kuwait. They have borders within and between neighborhoods of 100 cities between Sunni and Shia. They have roaming bands of thugs and outlaws who don't have a concept of civilized human life – each of whom has no border. They have an antithetical variety of extreme religious beliefs amidst a culture antithetical to ours. And we think we’re going to control those borders? Wow! Talk about unrealistic. Critics of enforcement of our immigration laws say it is impossible to track or round up illegals in this country? And we're trying to do WHAT in Iraq?

I have a wonderful and logical idea...I don't know why I, or someone, hadn’t thought of this months ago.

If there is any legislative funding rider concerning our continuing and increasingly wasteful war in Iraq, it should be this:

Pull back our troops to outside the borders of Iraq. Reposition three quarters of our troops along our own borders (including seaports and coastlines). First priority: Demonstrate to the American people that we are capable of and have an indisputably strong will to enforce our own borders. Demonstrate that we are serious in dealing with illegal alien lawbreakers in our own country first. Use our border patrol agents to establish an accurate census of illegal aliens who are here and implement an effective tracking system. Immediately deport whatever percent of these illegal aliens who have broken laws in addition to our immigration laws. Give the balance of the illegal aliens a “reasonable time” to make arrangements to leave and seek citizenship through existing, appropriate means. Enforce employer violations of our immigration laws.

Once we have demonstrated our effectiveness at these tasks, then we might have more credibility in pursuing the Second priority, a border enforcement effort in a place like Iraq...if there are any Iraqis left.

But, for reasons that elude me, our leaders will demonstrate they are NOT serious about defending our own borders, and will continue to demonstrate our own lack of will, and thus lack of competence, elsewhere.

"Core Values Training": Reqired of wrong group

While our troops in Iraq get blown up, shot up and decapitated by the vilest amoral bunch of dogs to roam the earth, we are requiring them all to go through "core values training", which is the military equivalent of anger management training in civilian life. We want them to be sensitive to the culture of those they are fighting.

What is that culture again? The culture that values decapitating those who show cartoons of Muhammad, the leader of the "religion of peace" (gag). The culture that removes freedom of speech and other rights from anyone who practices a different faith from their own. The culture that becomes absolutely psychotic if they are offended in any way. We want to make our troops sensitive to these behaviors? Wow!

Expectations of our society don't seem to match the realities of this war and our enemy.

I deplore killing babies (if, in fact, our soldiers did that), unlike the values of the enemy they are fighting. I deplore the senseless killing of "innocents" (if, in fact, our soldiers did that), unlike the values of the enemy they are fighting.

Core values training. I think our President and Congress could use some "core values training" to remind them of the core values of our own culture. How about our core value of not killing our own babies through the unmitigated practice of abortion? How about our core value of enforcing our own laws and not letting them be ignored for the sake of cheap labor and enhanced corporate profits? How about our core value of respecting our culture and our own heritage and not letting who we are get diluted by rampant, cultural diversity that places a higher value on illegal aliens than on our own citizens?

I think "Core Values Training" for our leaders in Washington should be a much higher priority than Core Values Training for our troops in Iraq.

Democracy Does Not Insure Sanity

One of the things I learned in school, I think it was 6th grade "civics", was that a democracy could be one and the same as "a tyranny of the majority." Palestines' recent democratic election points out that we need to be careful what we wish for. If we ignorantly wish for nations to become democracies so that they will miraculously become our allies, we are sorely mistaken.

Deomcratic Palestine is now run by Hamas, one of the most notorious Islamofacist terrorist organizations in the world. We are congratulating ourselves for achieving the beginnings of democracy in Iraq. What form of terrorist-loving government will that democracy create?

Don't you think we're missing something when we narrow mindedly promote democracy as the cure all to our problem of international relations? What are we missing?

Here are some thoughts:

• Belief in a higher power and authority (beyond government) that defines and rewards universally accepted "good behavior" (yes, religion matters)
• Love of personal freedom balanced by a strong sense of personal responsibility
• Freedom of expression/press
• Respect for law
• Respect for the freedom of choice of others
• Common vision and purpose among the people

There are infinite combinations and varieties of these "basics" of a civil nation. A "democracy" ain't one of them. I was reminded recently that Hitler rose and thrived in a democracy. That democracy certainly did not ensure sanity, either.

We're Fighting for What!!???

This is from the "be careful what you ask for" department.

The United States has been fighting for democracy in Iraq. Of course, many of us are aware that our own nation is a republic, not a democracy. We know that in a democracy, there is the very real potential for the tyranny of the majority. Now blend that potential with an Iraqi constitutional provision that states that Islam will be a basis for all law in Iraq. Then go one step further in realizing that true Islam is against women's rights, supports violent Jihad, and would like to see the infidels (those who do not embrace Islam) either subservient or dead. These folks may call Islam "a religion of peace" but translate the word "peace" to mean the condition that results after their total conquest.

So, we have lost how many thousand American lives for what? So we can win the right for a nation to adopt a constitution that embraces the laws of a religion that wants us dead and makes slaves of its' women?

"Democracy" is a duel edged sword. The majority can vote for evil just as well as a dictator can enforce evil.

If this is as it appears, and I am not mistaken, I will quickly turn anti-war. If this is as it appears, that we are fighting to create an Islamic nation, then any other American who dies from this point forward dies in obedience to a misdirected mission and an evil cause.

I hope I am not interpreting these events correctly - that this is just a phase of constitutional negotiation. Look out for the spinning that concludes that Islamic law is benign, that it is the "will of the people", that all is cool, and we have won a great victory. That will be a lie. We will have won the opportunity for a major part of that nation to live in bondage. And worse, the threat to the U.S. from that nation will be as real and present as under Sadam.

If I am interpreting this correctly, I would rather withdraw to allow the various factions of psycho-Islamic facists to fight each other to the death and have nothing else to do with their psychotic behavior. I would rather come to the rescue of a nation where goodness can prevail, not evil.

Here is the article excerpted from JihadWatch (weblink in the above title):

Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam...

Most of the world is just hearing about this, but if you have been reading Jihad Watch you would know that there has been no change on this point since late July. Another I told you so update: "Iraq draft says laws must conform to Islam -text," from Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

BAGHDAD, Aug 22 (Reuters) - A draft constitution for Iraq to be presented to parliament on Monday will make Islam "a main source" for legislation and ban laws that contradict religious teachings, members of the parliamentary drafting panel said.
One said the text, agreed by the ruling Shi'ite and Kurdish coalition over Sunni Arab objections, would read: "Islam is a main source for legislation and it is not permitted to legislate anything that conflicts with the fixed principles of its rules."
Shi'ite delegate Jawad al-Maliki said the wording was fixed.
It appeared to be something of a compromise after secular Kurds had objected during negotiations to Islam being "the main source" of laws. It was not clear how legislation would be subjected to the test of conforming to Islamic principles.

Blackmail!

Click on the title for a perfect example of the blatant blackmail of Islamic leaders, this one in London.

The message: Get out of Iraq or we will continue to terrorize and kill your civilians.

This is the teaching of their "religion": "Do what I say or I will...

• Cut off your finger
• Chop off your hand
• Cut out your tongue
• Cut off your ____ (pick a body part)
• Kill members of your family
• Blow up innocent civilians."

Ooops. I forgot. None of us are innocent. We are all infidels - we don't believe as they do. So we shall become either dhimmis, or Allah wants us dead. With free speech like that, we won't have any free speech.

Today it's get out of Iraq. What was it before 9/11? What will it be next when we leave Iraq?

This is blackmail, pure and simple. It should be rewarded with redoubled efforts to practice whatever profiling is necessary to get every one of these uncivilized, slimy vipers off the streets. By the way, this is the same character that was congratulating the Islamic highjackers after 9/11.