You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Arabian Nightmare: Red Meat for Rantburgers
2006-11-15
cum granis salis - it is Ralph Peters after all, who seems to swing rather wildly at times on Iraq.
With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance. What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order. That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them. If you're not willing to lay down a rule that any Iraqi or foreign terrorist masquerading as a security official or military member will be shot, you can't win.
Now where have I heard that before?
I've mentioned the principle of "pay me now, pay me later" a time or two in these pages. Here it is writ large.

We have the number of casualties we do now because when we went in we said we were going to do "shock and awe" and instead went out of our way not to kill the entire Iraqi army. That may have been Tommy Franks' mistake, but I suspect it was Colin Powell's — or at least the Powell party within the administration.

Subsequent to disposing as gently as possible of the Iraqi army, we set about bringing democracy to Iraq, an experiment that has demonstrably not worked. We all had high hopes, but I've also mentioned on a few occasions that democracy is not the same thing as invidual liberty. Without the latter, the former is just another form of government, no more or less desirable than an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship. All have approximately the same chance of producing a society that's worth living in. Democracy as an expression of individual liberty is a different story. Pakistan's democracy rules the country, while in the U.S. our republican democracy governs. There's a big difference there.

With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it would have been better to install a McArthur and make sure the troops in the country were occupation troops and the legal system U.S. martial law. Rather than allowing the Iraqis to draft their own shariah-based constitution it would have been better to impose our own, or a close variant thereof, upon them. Had we done that, Moqtada al-Sadr would have been shot a couple years ago, before building a Mahdi army under our noses. The Association of Muslim Scholars would have been arrested and shot at approximately the same time. Sadr City would have been suppressed with tanks and infantry the first time it erupted, and Iranian and Arab infiltrators would have been shot, preferably on the spot.

We'd have taken enormous political hits in the UN and the press. Lotsa people wouldn't have liked us. But Iran wouldn't be tugging Uncle Sam's beard now, nor would North Korea. Syria would probably have joined Qaddafi in making a separate peace, and Yemen and Sudan wouldn't have gone back to the dark side. That kind of policy may even have kept the Paks a bit more honest.
Posted by:OldSpook

#13  Goes to show some/certain LESSONS OF HISTORY, WAR, LEADERSHIP + GOVERNANCE, ETC. MAY HAVE TO BE RE-LEARNED THE HARD WAY.

C2CAM.com > NOORY + guest GLENN BECK > BECK claims that despite PC he + staff have closely reviewed-scrutinized IRANIAN MEDIAS for the proper intrepretation of Moud's = Iranian diplo-speak. Says what has been found is truly frightening and warns that MOUD > INDEED "MOUD OF THE [WORLDWIDE]APOCALYPSE" = WANTS TO THE DE FACTO INTRUMENT THAT USHERS IN BOTH THE 12th IMMAM + GLOBAL APOCALYPSE IN GENERAL, AND THAT RADICAL ISLAM IS HELL-BENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA + ENTIRE WESTERN/NON-MUSLIM WORLD. BECK claims that in Muslim world, WAY OF WAR, NOT WAY OF PEACE, MOHAMMED THE WARRIOR NOT THE PEACEMAKER ala JESUS CHRIST, is the prevailing, all-important difference in Islamist vs Western ways of thinking = perceptions. CHILDREN are being indoctrinated as young as 5 years old to want/desire to become jihadis and suicide bombers.
BECK additionally stated that PCorrectness is putting the USA-West at risk of pervasive self-delusion about to how to effectively deal wid Radical Islam, and eventually to OUR OWN [SELF?] DESTRUCTION.

BECK also said that where MOUD wants the 12th Immam of Islam to set up is by Western tradition where the ANTICHRIST will set up. *IOW, by Beck's comments ISLAM'S 12th IMMAM = ONE AND SAME ANTICHRIST OF WESTERN TRADITIONS.

LASTLY, BECK SAYS THAT IN MILITANT/HARDLINE RADICAL ISLAMISM, THE USA-EST IS DEALING WID ABSOLUTELY MALICIOUS, CORRUPT MEN > AMORAL/IMMORAL, CORRUPT, MANIPULATIVE, MEN OF THE DARKEST BLACKEST EVIL THAT COULD BE IMAGINED. THE USA-WEST NEEDS TO EMPOWER TRULY PRO-MODERATE, PRO-DEMOCRACY MUSLIMS WHILE DE FACTO KILLING OFF DEDICATED RADICALS/MILITANTS. To do otherwise is only to bring or invite MORE DESTRUCTION UNTO OURSELVES. NOORY > forecasts or predicts that some kind of attack = military action against IRAN will take place in approxi one month or so.

Once more, boyz, I believe BECK will agree that WOT > WAR TO THE DEATH + WAR FOR THE WORLD. WINNER TAKES ALL ANY AND EVERYTHING. AMERICA'S ENEMIES MAY TALK PEACE, JUSTICE + EQUALISM, BUT IN REALITY INTEND NEITHER + NOTHING EXCEPT THE DEFEAT + DESTRUCTION OF THE USA-WEST. IFF AMERICA CAN'T BE CONTROLLED/DOMINATED UNDER OWG + GLOBAL SOCIALISM AMERICA WILL BE DESTROYED. America's enemies want CONCESSIONS-APPEASEMENT + CONTROL OVER AMERICA-WEST > NO CONCESSION-APPEASEMENT = THEY'RE GONNA KILL US.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-11-15 21:10  

#12  unless you're willing to do in the totalitarians and their factions, it can't happen.

Word, MagnonMan. One of our top priorities must be wet work by hunter killer teams that centers upon eliminating the upper tier of Islamic clergy.

The vision has to come from the people, and they have to be willing to enforce the vision. Islam will cloud any vision of freedom because it's opposed to freedom.

Sadly, democratic rule of law as constituted by man is seen as usurping the pronouncements of their god. This allows any corrupt clergyman to dictate whatever whim comes to mind but prohibits consensual rule.

Muslims will find that this single incompatibility with Western culture and governance shall eventually spell their doom.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-11-15 21:06  

#11  The route to civil society goes through cultural and ethnically homogenous (moreorless) states (or highly federal ones). There are no exceptions to this rule.

The mistake in Iraq was to buy into the multicult myth. The Iraqis are now rectifying this mistake.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-11-15 20:23  

#10  Avian flu.

VX gas. Higher degree of certainty.

Posted by: Mick Dundee   2006-11-15 20:03  

#9  
Avian flu.
Posted by: Master of Obvious   2006-11-15 19:26  

#8  I still think old Ralph said it better last month, in his October 27th essay succinctly worded "KIll Muqtada Now" (See http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25145 ) in which he wrote:

And after we've killed Muqtada and destroyed his Mahdi Army, we need to go after the Sunni insurgents. If we can't leave a democracy behind, we should at least leave the corpses of our enemies.

It gets more directly to the point.
Posted by: Lone Ranger   2006-11-15 19:00  

#7  The Judeo-Christian roots of a constitutional republic operating within a democracy isn't something that can be delivered to any people. They have to do it themselves, and can with help. But in the Islamic world, it's still "might makes right," and unless you're willing to do in the totalitarians and their factions, it can't happen. The vision has to come from the people, and they have to be willing to enforce the vision. Islam will cloud any vision of freedom because it's opposed to freedom. The core belief is unquestioned submission.
Posted by: MagnonMan   2006-11-15 18:59  

#6  We don't think out of the box enough.
It's a release 4.0 insurgency being fought with a release 3.0 standing army - state mindset...

Posted by: 3dc   2006-11-15 17:37  

#5  True, DV, and some would even argue that we haven't had the will to fight (to win) since Korea. It's been fight to an armistice/cease fire. Where's that gotten us?

Welp, we still have troops in (increasing) harm's way at the DMZ of Korea. Yeah, we "pulled out" of Vietnam, but look at that country now (not to mention what happened in Cambodia). We "stopped short" (to borrow a Seinfeld saying) in GWI. Then our OFFICIAL policy on Iraq became regime change after overflights for years on end, under Clinton. Bush only IMPLEMENTED that policy. If we aren't willing to install a McArthur, then I say in the future, we just go in and break things and leave. As a Christian (and a human, honestly), I hate that approach for the locals who truly want freedom and/or to just go about their daily lives. But, it's obvious that some cultures just don't want/deserve "nation building." Bush HAD to try this theory, but unless we can do it full tilt, it really is NOT worth doing.
Posted by: BA   2006-11-15 15:32  

#4  That is the problem. Our strengths have now become our weaknesses and we no longer have the will to win.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-11-15 14:42  

#3  Our "humanity" is cowardice masquerading as morality. We're protecting self-appointed religious executioners with our emphasis on a "universal code of behavior" that only exists in our fantasies. By letting the thugs run the streets, we've abandoned the millions of Iraqis who really would prefer peaceful lives and a modicum of progress.

We're blind to the fundamental moral travesty in Iraq (and elsewhere): Spare the killers in the name of human rights, and you deprive the overwhelming majority of the population of their human rights. Instead of being proud of ourselves for our "moral superiority," we should be ashamed to the depths of our souls.

All's we gotta do is convince Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: Bobby   2006-11-15 14:25  

#2  I would take it one step further. Go door to door and anyone unwilling to kneel, bow and submit with a smile would be shot dead. The effect would be to rip the testosterone out of their society. That would quiet things down some.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-11-15 14:24  

#1  a medieval state with cell phones

Bwahahaha, doesn't that describe a vast majority of the MME (Muslim Middle East)?

That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.

Yup, OldSpook, laws knows wherever did he pick up such a notion?
Posted by: Zenster   2006-11-15 12:56  

00:00