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."

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.

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.