Thursday, April 29, 2004
REALITY CHECK - In another great piece for NRO Victor Hanson Davis explodes some of the more popular myths spread by the anti-war crowd:
"Myth #1: America turned off its allies. According to John Kerry, due to inept American diplomacy and unilateral arrogance, the United States failed to get the Europeans and the U.N. on board for the war in Iraq. Thus, unlike in Afghanistan, we find ourselves alone.
In fact, there are only about 4,500-5,500 NATO troops in Afghanistan right now. The United States and its Anglo allies routed the Taliban by themselves. NATO contingents in Afghanistan are not commensurate with either the size or the wealth of Europe.
There are far more Coalition troops in Iraq presently than in Afghanistan. As in the Balkans, NATO and EU troops will arrive only when the United States has achieved victory and provided security. The same goes for the U.N., which did nothing in Serbia and Rwanda, but watched thousands being butchered under its nose. It fled from Iraq after its first losses.
Yes, the U.N. will return to Iraq — but only when the United States defeats the insurrectionists. It will stay away if we don't. American victory or defeat, as has been true from Korea to the Balkans, will alone determine the degree of (usually post-bellum) participation of others."
Read the whole thing for the truth on "war profiteering" and more....
"Myth #1: America turned off its allies. According to John Kerry, due to inept American diplomacy and unilateral arrogance, the United States failed to get the Europeans and the U.N. on board for the war in Iraq. Thus, unlike in Afghanistan, we find ourselves alone.
In fact, there are only about 4,500-5,500 NATO troops in Afghanistan right now. The United States and its Anglo allies routed the Taliban by themselves. NATO contingents in Afghanistan are not commensurate with either the size or the wealth of Europe.
There are far more Coalition troops in Iraq presently than in Afghanistan. As in the Balkans, NATO and EU troops will arrive only when the United States has achieved victory and provided security. The same goes for the U.N., which did nothing in Serbia and Rwanda, but watched thousands being butchered under its nose. It fled from Iraq after its first losses.
Yes, the U.N. will return to Iraq — but only when the United States defeats the insurrectionists. It will stay away if we don't. American victory or defeat, as has been true from Korea to the Balkans, will alone determine the degree of (usually post-bellum) participation of others."
Read the whole thing for the truth on "war profiteering" and more....
Monday, April 19, 2004
THE SAUDI CONNECTION - Stephan Schwartz thinks tensions in Fallujah stem from Wahhabist tendencies more than Baathist sympathies:
"A more significant ingredient in the stewpot of Fallujah's discontent, however, is local adherence to Wahhabism, the extremist Islamic sect that is the state religion in neighboring Saudi Arabia and whose purest expression is al-Qaeda. Here and there, Western journalists have alluded to this; an Associated Press report noted that of the residents of Fallujah, "many adhere to Sunni Islam's austere Wahhabi sect." Wahhabi militants in Kuwait and other nearby states have begun collecting money, blood, and supplies to sustain the conflict. Even in the United States, some leaders of the "Wahhabi lobby" that dominates American Islam declared their solidarity with the "resistance" in Fallujah. "
Even more evidence that we need to take firm control of this hot-spot rather than resort to knee-jerk appeasement as UN envoy Brahimi has:
"In Iraq Mr. Brahimi is being assigned the role of de facto Douglas MacArthur. This includes assailing U.S. military commanders for their tactics in the middle of a battle zone. As Marines fought house-to-house in Fallujah last week, Mr. Brahimi took to the Arab airwaves to declare that 'Collective punishments are not acceptable--cannot be acceptable, and to cordon off and besiege a city is not acceptable.' "
Bush's decision to cave in to pressure and cede some control to the U.N. is even more troubling in light of this quote. With Brahimi at the helm extremist in Iraq will not hesitate to exploit the weak and ineffectual UN.... chances of a democratic movement succeeding will drop from around 50-50 to close to zero.
"A more significant ingredient in the stewpot of Fallujah's discontent, however, is local adherence to Wahhabism, the extremist Islamic sect that is the state religion in neighboring Saudi Arabia and whose purest expression is al-Qaeda. Here and there, Western journalists have alluded to this; an Associated Press report noted that of the residents of Fallujah, "many adhere to Sunni Islam's austere Wahhabi sect." Wahhabi militants in Kuwait and other nearby states have begun collecting money, blood, and supplies to sustain the conflict. Even in the United States, some leaders of the "Wahhabi lobby" that dominates American Islam declared their solidarity with the "resistance" in Fallujah. "
Even more evidence that we need to take firm control of this hot-spot rather than resort to knee-jerk appeasement as UN envoy Brahimi has:
"In Iraq Mr. Brahimi is being assigned the role of de facto Douglas MacArthur. This includes assailing U.S. military commanders for their tactics in the middle of a battle zone. As Marines fought house-to-house in Fallujah last week, Mr. Brahimi took to the Arab airwaves to declare that 'Collective punishments are not acceptable--cannot be acceptable, and to cordon off and besiege a city is not acceptable.' "
Bush's decision to cave in to pressure and cede some control to the U.N. is even more troubling in light of this quote. With Brahimi at the helm extremist in Iraq will not hesitate to exploit the weak and ineffectual UN.... chances of a democratic movement succeeding will drop from around 50-50 to close to zero.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
U.N. NO PANACEA - Those who call for a UN take-over in Iraq as a quick and easy fix may want to consider the performance of this esteemed peace-keeping organization in recent years. Let's see now.... allowing the massacre in Srebrenica, hand - wringing and pontificating while genocide was raging in Rwanda, coddling dictators (like, um, Saddam Hussein)...I certainly wouldn't want the UN in charge of security or anything else in my country and can understand why Iraqis wouldn't either:
"While L. Paul Bremer, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator, expressed outrage over the bombing of Iraq's U.N. compound last August, Iraqi reaction was more subdued. "It was an inside job," a Shia doctor insisted as we sat in a restaurant the next day. The U.N. had not only refused Coalition protection but had also retained guards employed under the former regime. "Didn't they know that their guards reported to the Baathists?," the doctor said. Iraqis watched in disgust as the U.N. subsequently fled to Jordan. "They reward terrorism," a Sunni engineer told me. "And, they're taking the SUVs we paid for [with Oil-for-Food money], a Kurdish politician added. A March 3, 2004, internal U.N. report placed blame squarely on shortcomings among U.N. personnel.
Some Iraqis would welcome a U.N. presence. On April 6, the Arabic satellite channel al Jazeera said that Islamists and militants fighting in Fallujah demanded U.N. involvement. While violence against Americans has consequence, they understand that the U.N. symbolizes weakness. Banners in the largely Islamist town of al-Amarah call for greater U.N. involvement among demands for a sharia-based constitution. Only with U.N. involvement could Islamists bypass the democratic will and involve Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraqi affairs."
OUR RESOLVE IS KEY - Check out this letter written by an American contractor in Iraq who knows what he's fighting for (link via Instapundit):
"Old ways die hard among thugs. And pure thuggery is what has ruled Iraq for more than 10 years before Saddam Hussain under Al-Bakir. There are a few thugs standing in the wings around here trying to vie for power because that’s all they know. It doesn’t matter what variation on Islam they are spouting…they are nothing more than mob bosses and the Iraqi people, in general are tired of it. Add some out-of-country terrorists to the mix and an American liberal media in an election year and these thugs think they are going to win. I pray American voters see that we must finish this one the right way. If we walk away now, we will be responsible for a lot more than the 2 million Cambodians and every last Montainyard that was murdered the year after we abandoned Indochina. Here is the reality I see everyday.
The Iraqi people as a whole…love us. You read it right…love us. Terrorists may hate us and radicals in different ethnic groups within Iraq may hate each other…but in general, the common Iraqi people, Shias, Sunis, Kurds, Chaldeans, Turkomen, all have one thing in common…For one instant in time, they have hope for their future and the future of their children…and that hope is centered around one group of foreigners…you guessed it…Americans…the good old USA."
"While L. Paul Bremer, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator, expressed outrage over the bombing of Iraq's U.N. compound last August, Iraqi reaction was more subdued. "It was an inside job," a Shia doctor insisted as we sat in a restaurant the next day. The U.N. had not only refused Coalition protection but had also retained guards employed under the former regime. "Didn't they know that their guards reported to the Baathists?," the doctor said. Iraqis watched in disgust as the U.N. subsequently fled to Jordan. "They reward terrorism," a Sunni engineer told me. "And, they're taking the SUVs we paid for [with Oil-for-Food money], a Kurdish politician added. A March 3, 2004, internal U.N. report placed blame squarely on shortcomings among U.N. personnel.
Some Iraqis would welcome a U.N. presence. On April 6, the Arabic satellite channel al Jazeera said that Islamists and militants fighting in Fallujah demanded U.N. involvement. While violence against Americans has consequence, they understand that the U.N. symbolizes weakness. Banners in the largely Islamist town of al-Amarah call for greater U.N. involvement among demands for a sharia-based constitution. Only with U.N. involvement could Islamists bypass the democratic will and involve Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraqi affairs."
OUR RESOLVE IS KEY - Check out this letter written by an American contractor in Iraq who knows what he's fighting for (link via Instapundit):
"Old ways die hard among thugs. And pure thuggery is what has ruled Iraq for more than 10 years before Saddam Hussain under Al-Bakir. There are a few thugs standing in the wings around here trying to vie for power because that’s all they know. It doesn’t matter what variation on Islam they are spouting…they are nothing more than mob bosses and the Iraqi people, in general are tired of it. Add some out-of-country terrorists to the mix and an American liberal media in an election year and these thugs think they are going to win. I pray American voters see that we must finish this one the right way. If we walk away now, we will be responsible for a lot more than the 2 million Cambodians and every last Montainyard that was murdered the year after we abandoned Indochina. Here is the reality I see everyday.
The Iraqi people as a whole…love us. You read it right…love us. Terrorists may hate us and radicals in different ethnic groups within Iraq may hate each other…but in general, the common Iraqi people, Shias, Sunis, Kurds, Chaldeans, Turkomen, all have one thing in common…For one instant in time, they have hope for their future and the future of their children…and that hope is centered around one group of foreigners…you guessed it…Americans…the good old USA."
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
FLUSHING THEM OUT - I generally agree with blogger Cavalier's take on al Sadr: he and his Islamo-fascist cronies need to be eliminated:
"It's possible that closing his hate-spewing newspaper Hawza and arresting his aide Mustafa al-Yacoubi (accused of knifing al-Sadr's rival Abdel-Majid al-Khoei to death) were specifically done to drive al-Sadr into action now. It's critically important to remove these disruptive elements from Iraq while we still hold overall power and have the freedom to act, not to mention that we have fresh soldiers on hand from the ongoing troop rotation. Large military operations should be completed before the heat of the Iraqi summer sets in if possible, and when we have the freedom to set the timetable we should do so. We've got to clean out this extremist rat's nest and the one in Fallujah before we turn power over to the Iraqi people at the end of June. Carving out a place in the Middle East will be difficult enough for a fledgling democracy to do without this sort of internal strife erupting."
Iraqi blogger Zeyad fears though that we may not succeed if moderates don't speak up:
"A couple of GC members have shyly spoken against the violence. Ayad Allawi (INA) first described the uprisings as being directed by 'evil and dark forces who wish no prosperity for Iraqis', then he started beseeching his 'brother' Muqtada Al-Sadr to stay calm (Even he is scared from Sadr's thugs?). SCIRI leader, Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim condemned the behaviour of occupation forces in killing civilians in Najaf and called for their punishment. The Iraqi Ministry of Justice stated that they had absolutely nothing to do with the arrest warrant for Muqtada Al-Sadr. And you want us to keep hope?
No one knows where it is all heading. If this uprising is not crushed immediately and those militia not captured then there is no hope at all. If you even consider negotiations or appeasement, then we are all doomed."
IRAQ AS FALLUJA - Christopher Hitchens puts Falluja in context:
"There must be a temptation, when confronted with the Dantesque scenes from Fallujah, to surrender to something like existential despair. The mob could have cooked and eaten its victims without making things very much worse. One especially appreciated the detail of the heroes who menaced the nurses, when they came to try and remove the charred trophies.
But this "Heart of Darkness" element is part of the case for regime-change to begin with. A few more years of Saddam Hussein, or perhaps the succession of his charming sons Uday and Qusay, and whole swathes of Iraq would have looked like Fallujah. The Baathists, by playing off tribe against tribe, Arab against Kurd and Sunni against Shiite, were preparing the conditions for a Hobbesian state of affairs. Their looting and beggaring of the state and the society--something about which we now possess even more painfully exact information--was having the same effect. A broken and maimed and traumatized Iraq was in our future no matter what. "
...and reminds us why the war was just and necessary:
"I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?"
"It's possible that closing his hate-spewing newspaper Hawza and arresting his aide Mustafa al-Yacoubi (accused of knifing al-Sadr's rival Abdel-Majid al-Khoei to death) were specifically done to drive al-Sadr into action now. It's critically important to remove these disruptive elements from Iraq while we still hold overall power and have the freedom to act, not to mention that we have fresh soldiers on hand from the ongoing troop rotation. Large military operations should be completed before the heat of the Iraqi summer sets in if possible, and when we have the freedom to set the timetable we should do so. We've got to clean out this extremist rat's nest and the one in Fallujah before we turn power over to the Iraqi people at the end of June. Carving out a place in the Middle East will be difficult enough for a fledgling democracy to do without this sort of internal strife erupting."
Iraqi blogger Zeyad fears though that we may not succeed if moderates don't speak up:
"A couple of GC members have shyly spoken against the violence. Ayad Allawi (INA) first described the uprisings as being directed by 'evil and dark forces who wish no prosperity for Iraqis', then he started beseeching his 'brother' Muqtada Al-Sadr to stay calm (Even he is scared from Sadr's thugs?). SCIRI leader, Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim condemned the behaviour of occupation forces in killing civilians in Najaf and called for their punishment. The Iraqi Ministry of Justice stated that they had absolutely nothing to do with the arrest warrant for Muqtada Al-Sadr. And you want us to keep hope?
No one knows where it is all heading. If this uprising is not crushed immediately and those militia not captured then there is no hope at all. If you even consider negotiations or appeasement, then we are all doomed."
IRAQ AS FALLUJA - Christopher Hitchens puts Falluja in context:
"There must be a temptation, when confronted with the Dantesque scenes from Fallujah, to surrender to something like existential despair. The mob could have cooked and eaten its victims without making things very much worse. One especially appreciated the detail of the heroes who menaced the nurses, when they came to try and remove the charred trophies.
But this "Heart of Darkness" element is part of the case for regime-change to begin with. A few more years of Saddam Hussein, or perhaps the succession of his charming sons Uday and Qusay, and whole swathes of Iraq would have looked like Fallujah. The Baathists, by playing off tribe against tribe, Arab against Kurd and Sunni against Shiite, were preparing the conditions for a Hobbesian state of affairs. Their looting and beggaring of the state and the society--something about which we now possess even more painfully exact information--was having the same effect. A broken and maimed and traumatized Iraq was in our future no matter what. "
...and reminds us why the war was just and necessary:
"I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?"
