Surging into the Abyss
It now looks like the administration has adopted the surge strategy as its mantra. Simply put it means no new political road map for Iraq in place of the “national unity government” formula that has so far failed (has not delivered on the insurgency but has managed to alienated the Shias, and has actually caused more rather than less sectarian violence since the U.S. adopted it); going it alone (ignoring ISG’s recommendation to talk to the neighbors); and putting more boots on the ground. This last item deserves special attention. The language of the administration suggests that the surge will be used to fight radical groups and sectarian militias—Sunni ones and especially Shia militias and death squads associated with Muqtada al-Sadr. But listen closely; what they mean is that surge is in fact meant to finish off Sadr. And there lies the danger.
New troops will be in Iraq not to police the streets and hold the line against the creeping violence, but to expand the war by taking on the Shia militias. This is an escalation strategy. Will it work; maybe, maybe not. But it runs the risk that it may very well provoke a Shia insurgency—something Iraq has not so far witnessed. Thus far the U.S. has faced a Sunni insurgency (which by most estimates continues to account for 80% of U.S. casualties), and sectarian violence in which Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. Shia militias are violent, destructive and radical, but Shia militias are a very different problem from the Sunni insurgency. Shia militias, unlike te insurgency, are not targeting American troops. But it looks like the administration is set to change that. Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani. Anti-Americanism has grown in Shia ranks as they accuse U.S. of favoring Sunnis by focusing on Shia militias rather than Sunni insurgency. By going to war with the increasingly popular Sadr Washington runs the danger of losing the Shia altogether.
Wrong-headed military and political steps provoked the Sunni insurgency in 2003-04, and then more mistakes helped fuel sectarian violence in 2005-06. Another set of mistakes can turn 2007 into the year that U.S. provoked a Shia insurgency. That may prove to be the mother of all mistakes. Hell in Iraq will come when the Shia south—accounting for 60% of the country’s population, largest urban areas, oil, supply lines to Kuwait, and only gateway to the Persian Gulf—rises up against the U.S. Then we either have to get out of Iraq altogether and very quickly, or we will have to commit to many more troop surges to deal with the problems created by the first one.
Finally, in the grander scheme of things, it is not Iraq that needs a troop surge, but Afghanistan. As Barnett Rubin points out in his excellent essay in the latest issue of the Foreign Affairs the country where the 9/11 plot was hatched and the international terror threat started may well collapse into chaos and violence, and produce another terrorist threat if the U.S. does not commit more troops and resources to shore up its government and economy, and contain the Taliban. Surging in the wrong country at this time will make the U.S. more vulnerable in the coming years. Ignoring Afghanistan will take that country back to where it was before 9/11 while the cycle of surges and insurgencies in Iraq will further limit our ability to respond to Afghanistan. What should Washington do: Surge in Afghanistan if you surge anywhere, and as for Iraq, focus first on a political roadmap.
Shia militias, unlike the insurgency, are not targeting American troops.
This seems a rather important fact. How are US soldiers going to feel when called upon to start attacking people who have not been killing them, but who have been fighting the people who have been killing them?
Won't this inevitably strengthen the Sunni Arab hand in Baghdad? Is this supposed to prepare the ground for a Sunni takeover of Baghdad in some future tri-partite settlement of the country's political affairs? Will our troops be cool with that? After seeing their comrades fall for many months defending Baghdad against the Sunni insurgency, what is the likely response to this White House-level switcheroo?
The administration seems to be gambling that Shia who are affiliated with SCIRI or Dawa, as opposed to the Mahdi Army, are so loyal to their own groups that they will stand by as Americans attack their co-religionists. Now maybe this makes sense for the most dedicated and Machiavellian political operatives in those organizations. But does this really make sense for ordinary rank-and-file Shia loyalists? (This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know what the answer is.) Aren't there Shiites who are not part of the Mahdi Army, but have some feeling for Sadr and his father, and will not sit still for an attempt to wipe out the Mahdi Army?
The administration is now so obsessed with Iran - and possibly Isrraeli, Saudi and Sunni Gulf concerns about Iran - that they can't seem to remember what side they have been on in this war.
Hell in Iraq will come when the Shia south—accounting for 60% of the country’s population, largest urban areas, oil, supply lines to Kuwait, and only gateway to the Persian Gulf—rises up against the U.S. Then we either have to get out of Iraq altogether and very quickly, or we will have to commit to many more troop surges to deal with the problems created by the first one.
Well, Bush is also calling for a larger Army along with this temporary surge. Parents: hold on to your kids.
I love the ineptitude of this "surge" language by the way. The last surge Bush had anything to do with was the nonexistent response to the Katrina storm surge in New Orleans. So much for the political genius of Rove and co.
December 21, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, of course. Since it goes without saying that Afghanistan was he crux of whatever the problem was (is) it tends to not be said; Iraq killed Afghanistan.
With the future so cloudy, no good options in Iraq, Afghanistan in a flat spiral, Saudi Arabia and Iran showing signs of a major break, etc., it begins to look like larger-scale war is in the offing. Thanks, George, and all the regime-change enthusiasts.
December 21, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Surge in Afghanistan if you surge anywhere,..."
What's the argument that a surge in Afghanistan will resolve the problems there?
December 21, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Kyle
I remember hearing that it was al Sadr who was the main support for Maliki. Is this true? And if so, wouldnt attacking his militia amount to sawing off the branch we are standing on? Who is next in line to be the US's government?
December 21, 2006 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think of Reuel Marc Gerecht's idea in todays' New York Times? Instead of sending the 20,000 more troops into Iraq to go after Sadr they should be used to secure and quiet the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad. His idea is that attacking Sadr will split the Shites and force U.S. troops into two wars in Iraq. However, if the Sunnis are suppressed it will keep the Shite militas out of the fight and perhaps begin the process of deradicalizing them.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 21, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How quickly the November hopes for a return to rational foreign policy have disappeared. Everytime I listen to the comments from President and the White I shake my head in disbelief. Did I miss someting here? Didn't the election mean anything? The Iraq Commission? I try to imagine what they are thinking and I just can't get there. When I get close, all I see is the spectre of a constitutional crisis and fiscal bankruptcy at home and the end of any pretence at moral authority in the conduct of the war against terror. They can't be serious.
December 21, 2006 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muqtada al-Sadr is, or is believed by most Shiites to be, a descendant of Muhammed. If the U.S. kills, injures or captures al-Sadr, I believe Iraq's Shiite population will be inflamed. If the U.S. clears the way for the Iraqi military to kill or capture al-Sadr, will that not also inflame Iraqis?
December 21, 2006 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you were a Sunni, how would that look to you?
December 21, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel: "However, if the Sunnis are suppressed. . . ." That's one big if. Madison: "Didn't the election mean anything?" To Bush? Dream on.
A lot to be said for the post, but one thing nags at me. I can see an outcome after our inevitable departure, if not sooner, in which the Shiite militias pretty much massacre the Sunni majority as fast as they possibly can. The good news is that this makes it a civil war, in the sense of something with familiar and perhaps resolvable dynamics, as in Bosnia, whereas now the place is sheer chaos. The bad news is that a lot of people will die thanks to the forces we enabled. While I agree that fighting the militias is going to make matters even scarier, I'd be interested in hearing Vali Nasr's thoughts on the odds of and dealing with such an outcome.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 21, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can 160,000 American troops conquer Sadr City without turning it into a new Fallujah? How many of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths are we willing to inflict in the process?
It was clear from the beginning that installing democracy in a Shi'ite dominated population was going to result in a Shi'ia dominated government, that would be the natural effect of having an open vote. And given that the leadership of the Shi'ias are either friendly to Iran or are Shi'ia fundamentalists or with Sistani both, the expected end result would be a fundamentalist Iranian friendly regime.
It's not like nobody thought about this. Cheney early on was asked what we would do if this result occured. His reply: "That is not going to happen".
Magical thinking. It enfuses this Administration. And certainly it is continuing here. Want a jolt of reality? Attacking Sadr will bring Hezbollah into action in Lebanon and elsewhere in ways that will make the remaining neo-cons blanche. And I would not like to be the average GI taking R&R in Dubai or Bahrain post surge or escalation. Or for that matter in Munich
I can hear it know "Who could have predicted that German club bombing?" "Who imagined Hezbollah would launch massive attacks on Westerners in Beirut? Or send hundreds of rockets into Israel?"
Well anyone who thinks a second about what would happen if we take out Sadr. This surge will result in a flipping disaster. And that is if it works. If it doesn't work we may be talking Dien Bien Phu Deux.
December 21, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Suicidal Statecraft" as in the main cause of the collapse of empires . . . isn't that what Arnold Toynbee called it?
December 21, 2006 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . [Afghanistan] where . . . the international terror threat started . . . . Vali Nasr
Munich; Entebbe; Iran Hostage Crisis; Marine Barracks; Klinghoefer; Khobar Towers; East African Embassies; USS Cole?
Oh, I forgot. 9/11 changed everything.
December 21, 2006 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surge is another way of saying stay the course. Is it withdrawing from Iraq? No. Is it admitting the fundamental flaws and failure of his Iraq policy? No. Does it do anything different than continue to try and win a fight which we started for the wrong (or lied about) reasons? No. What it does is maintain the status quo, and fill a Bush need....to extend the game until someone hopefully can bail him out...yet again. I say yet again, because that appears to be the single common thread to his life - extend the game in hopes someone will bail him out and give him a win.
December 21, 2006 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats can interrupt their book tours and View appearances long enough to stare into the abyss, I hope they will at least make the Bush administration go on the record for every cent past, present and 50 years into the VA's future for what this fiasco is going to cost.
December 21, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the surge is intended to go after al-Sadr? That makes very little sense...but then again what does this administration do that does make sense?
If I remember al-Sadr had a major falling out with Iran. Correct me if I am wrong. Is this part of our response to Saudi pressure on us to help the Sunnis by trying to tear down the Shi'a? Are we trying to destabilize Iraq to the point that it spills over into Iran and destabilizes that country or try to draw Iranian forces into Iraq giving us justification to attack Iran? All I know is that if we go after al-Sadr and the other Shi'a militias all hell is gonna break loose and the carnage will be unimaginable...
This surge plan is the most irresponsible plan I have yet seen in our Iraq strategy...and that is saying a lot. Just when I thought El Presidente and the Junta couldn't screw it up worse they are looking to prove me wrong.
December 21, 2006 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably a mistake to assume "the surge" is actually designed to take out al-Sadr or accomplish any other specific objective. Remember, we've been hearing a lot of loud rumors about the US taking sides with the Shia in the civil war against the Sunni. You really can't do that and fight al-Sadr at the same time. We've also been hearing about air strikes against Iran. The surge could be useful there as well. My point: who the hell knows? We certainly shouldn't be taking the Administration at face value when it says the surge is meant to "control the militias."
If I had to guess, the surge is first and foremost a delaying tactic, since the White House has no idea what it will do next, strategically speaking. With the surge, the Administration is taking advantage of McCain's foolish attempt to distinguish himself from the President's Iraq policy by taking up McCain's call for more troops. St. John had been hoping to enter the '08 election saying, "all along I wanted more troops, but the Administration refused." Now...I'm not sure what he'll say. At any rate, it's a boon for the White House.
So I think it's a mistake to look at the surge the precursor to any specific plan in Iraq. The surge could do any number of things for the Administration from giving them more troops for teaming up with the Shia to putting troops in place if they bomb Iran. What do we know is not on the table? Withdrawal. Which is why this is an escalation, not a surge.
December 21, 2006 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US can take out al-Sadr, but not the Mahdi army. It's 60,000 strong now. Remember that last time the US went after it, it was much smaller AND coalition forces were much bigger.
Do the math.
December 21, 2006 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vali: First let me thank you for your excellent posts. It's a pleasure to read someone like you, who clearly knows what he's talking about. I hope you will continue to post here regularly.
While I agree that Afghanistan is falling to pieces and that's not something in which anyone should rejoice, I question its importance in the so-called war on terror. 9/11 was conceived mostly in Germany, Spain, Florida, and Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously think that without the Taliban, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I believe it would have happened anyway. The Taliban harbored al Qaeda but had nothing else to do with terrorism.
London, Madrid, Bali, etc, prove to me that Afghanistant's importance has been greatly exaggerated.
December 21, 2006 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sound-bite, "surge," replaces the sound-bite, "spike," as the lizard language cattle prod du jour aimed at the easily stampeded Nation of Sheep. These stimulus-response "noises" and their equivalent printed "spell marks" -- as Alfred Korzybski called strictly meaningless language -- have only the subliminal intent of suggesting a vague "temporariness" to what otherwise we could correctly call an "increase." Once "surged" into duty in Iraq, whatever hastily-scraped-together troops we can muster will simply have their tours extended and their enlistment contracts "stop lossed" to prevent the foreign legion from escaping its indefinite bondage. The rest of us will shop while the troops drop.
Oh, yes: and it seems to have gone unremarked and unremembered that Dick, Dubya, and Don (the Perp Boys) BEGAN this needless debacle with a "surge" invasion of Iraq that they swore up and down wouldn't last six weeks, let alone six months -- FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO! "Mission Accomplished" has become a "long war" glacier race in only eight "Thomas Friedmans" (i.e., critical next six-month periods). Breaking some eggs to produce an omelet has produced broken eggs but no omelet. "Catastrophic Gradualism," Orwell called it. The slope it has slipped. The nation has slept. The "mission" has crept.
As Bugs Bunny would no doubt say of America and its present Ship of Fools government: "What a bunch of maroons!"
December 21, 2006 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani"
Hasn't Sadr done more to undermine Sistani than anyone else?
If the grand strategy behind Iraq was to transform the Middle East (what Thomas Barnett calls "the Big Bang") the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law. If the idea was to stop people like the Taliban from restoring the Caliphate, Sadr is the main target in Iraq.
Sadr is the front man right now in that battle. If we don't try our hardest to stop him from gaining power, the whole idea was a waste of time. Well, except for the Kurds, but the my point is essentially true.
Waziristan and Bajaur are right up there as well, but the "neo-Taliban" have less influence in Kabul than Sadr has in Baghdad. Aweys might be a close third, and we are going to rely on Ethiopia to do the dirty work there.
Letting these people get their way (i.e. appeasement) is how 9/11 happened in the first place. Maybe if we had "pre-emptively" attacked the Taliban we could have prevented much of this brutality.
December 21, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
GHaines: That is the most ridiculous piece of revisionism ever. If the real reason for invading Iraq was to wage pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism we kind of started at the wrong end.
Most of Saddam's crimes were committed in the course of stamping out Islamic Fundamentalism. Is our position now that he just wasn't moving fast enough?
If removing him was just a bonus in the "War on Islamofascism" then the very last thing we should have done is disband the Army and de-Baathize the security forces, instead we should have installed a Sunni strong-man and had at it using those existing structures.
Leaving aside the question that using armed force to confront an ideology is kind of loopy to start with, Sadr wasn't blowing up Americans -then. After all, he was opposing a Sunni based secular movement that had not hesitated to use force on Shi'ias.
Give it up. This is a pathetically weak after the fact justification for this particular war. To take it seriously we would have to believe we were just deliberately spinning our wheels for the last three years and not confronting our real enemy. Which if true would make Bush even more criminally stupid than he is already.
We were attacked by Sunni fundamentalist extremists. And the proper response was first to overthrow a Sunni secular regime, turn over political power to Shi'ia fundamentalists and then declare they were the real enemy all along?
Clearly you have a future as Staff Revisionist at the George W Bush Presidential Library.
December 21, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone think that the proposed 'surge' in troop levels in Iraq maybe an attempt to build up troops in preparation for an attack on Iran instead?
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh were on Democracy Now! this morning and seemed convinced that we are on the path to war with Iran.
Building up troop levels in Iraq may be a disguised attempt to deploy a portion of the troops needed for an attack on Iran.
December 21, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
60,000 is the reported number of Mahdi Army troops that are more or less organized. The real army behind Sadr is every Shi'ia man that can pick up and aim a gun or RPG.
Try 600,000 or 6,000,000 (just throw in some Iranian volunteers).
I asked the question below. What would Hezbollah's likely reaction be to a wholesale attack on Shi'ias or even just the portion behind Sadr?
December 21, 2006 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, this was the neoconservative theory that underpinned the President's various claims about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's human rights abuses, and Iraq's connection to 9/11. And that theory has been thoroughly, comprehensively debunked. I can't say it clearly enough: the neocon domino theory for the Middle East that you advocate is a total and absolute failure on every level.
The neocons, supported by like good folks like yourself, mistakenly believed that if they toppled Muslim governments, those governments would magically reform as Western-friendly liberal democracies. It was magical, dangerously deluded thinking, and hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of it. As we see in Iraq, Palestine, and perhaps now Lebanon, nothing could be further from the truth. You can topple the regime, but your ability to replace it with something you like is damn near impossible. Insofar as the neocon plan "succeeded" it did so to America's great detriment, by setting the stage for Islamic fundamentalism to thrive throughout the Middle East.
With this in mind, it's ironic that you say the following:
The war in Iraq has been much, much more than a "waste of time," GHaines. It has been an unmitigated disaster of immeasurable, epic, mind-boggling proportions. In every way possible. We will be living with its ugly results for decades.
Sadr is nothing more than the next fundamentalist to fill the void in Iraq, followed by the next and the next, if you "take him out." You can't kill his followers because they are the people you came to liberate. And if you kill him, his followers will turn on you. You see, Iraq is broken. The only leaders who stand a chance there are men like al-Sadr, who are willing to kill with impugnity. This is George Bush's fault.
Actions have consequences. Sometimes dire consequences. Take al Sadr, just for an example. I'll assume you're aware that al-Sadr is the primary source of political support for Prime Minister Maliki, who was hand picked by the Bush Administration. What do you think will happen if US forces target al-Sadr? Will the Shiite majority in Iraq support such a move? Or will we suddenly be fighting a two-front war against both the Shia and Sunnis? It is a foolish, dangerously deluded idea - like so many things neocons suggest. It is based on magical thinking rather than evidence-based analysis. And it gets people killed.
December 21, 2006 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If dumba** Bush had not spent the entire month of 8/2001 on vacation contemplating stem cells we might have prevented 9/11 and saved thousands of lives.
December 21, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in my post, Grcutter, I think it's a mistake to assume the "surge" is attached to any single objective beyond buying the Administration time. The escalation could be in preparation of bombing Iran. It could be preparation for taking out al-Sadr. It could be the first step in teaming with the Shia to crush the Sunnis. Who knows? I don't think the Administration does, at least not with any certainty.
It is an escalation. With more troops, the White House can do more things (most of them foolish or counter-productive). In addition, it is a delaying action, since it will take time to ramp up the forces and analyze the results.
It's important to look at all the possibilities. Bombing Iran is certainly one of them.
December 21, 2006 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... the whole idea was a waste of time."
Correct!!
Tom
December 21, 2006 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, oh! Watch your language. This is what gets GHaines upset:)
What gets me upset is all the deaths in Iraq for nothing... and all the deaths to come for nothing except W's ego.
Tom
December 21, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, someone has problems with saying dumbass Bush? Why, we're not allowed to say dumbass Bush,
because to say dumbass Bush is using words, "dumbass Bush" that even people who think he's one dumbass Bush ought not to say, notwithstanding the evidence that he is one mother of a dumb ass, that dumbass bush?,
(With apology to Monty Python.)
December 21, 2006 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Taliban were engaged in a form of terrorism against their own people. They also gave Al Qaeda a safe haven from which to gather resources and to work out the plot.
Why does London, Madrid and Bali prove Afganistan is less important? Just because the actual perpetrators were native to those countries? Where did they get their resources. I would agree that Afghanistan might over stressed as Pakistan might be the bigger problem when it comes to terrorism. Whether it is attacks in India or shielding Bin Laden.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 21, 2006 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadr may remind you of the less savory leaders of Iran but he is not like the Taliban. Even if we Americans find distinguishing Sunni from Shite a chore the folks in the region have no problem. Iran helped us in Afghanistan precisely because they have no more use for the Sunni Taliban or Al Qaeda then we do.
If the Sunnis had not tried to hang on to 80 years of domination by murdering their Shite and Kurdish fellow Iraqis, with a bit of help of foreign Sunni Arabs, the current horror might have been avoided.
The Bush Administrations failure to send enough troops, to get help from the Saudis three years ago in curbing the Iraqi Sunnis, and breaking up the Iraq Army all helped foment a Shite desire for both protection and revenge. Thus the current tit for tat between Iraqi Shia and Sunni with the U.S. military basically as by-stander and occaisional target.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 21, 2006 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My friend Richard, a military historian with friends who are U.S. officers in Iraq thinks that is precisely the point of the Surge. As he said 20,000 troops translates into about 5,000 combat troops not enough to do much in Iraq but enough to support an air campaign against Iran. He fears a Bush in '08 freed of any personal election worries and able to get around the War Powers Act will launch a strike in the Summer of 2008.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 21, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In a thousand days ,I may die , the King may die,.........or the horse may talk ".
Substitute or the surge may work and you've got Bush's "plan" ,
In 29 months between Inauguration and Shock and Awe Bush signally failed to create a plan for occupying Iraq . How expect that in 29 days he's created one for the surge ?
December 21, 2006 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law.
Sharia law is just Islamic law. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been governed under some system of Islamic law, or combination of Islamic law and secular law, for 1400 years.
Do you really think we should go to war against sharia? Isn't the legal system of their own countries a matter for Muslims to decide? Wouldn't Muslims rightly conclude that a war aginst the spread of sharia is a war against Islam?
December 21, 2006 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you remember the good old days? The days when Americans were triumphant in Afghanistan? When we liberated Afghanistani females so they could go in public safely? Weren't those good old days? Well, we need to recapture those feelings. And, since this isn't a marriage we are discussing, we can't just rent a romantic hotel room, so the next best option is to kill a few more Afghanistan men. That takes a surge.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 21, 2006 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we attack the Sadrists, we will be doing the Saudi's dirty work for them, while they pretend clean hands. That would be madness. The Saudis get what they want, while we make more enemies. Sistani has his own death squads. We should not take sides in that particular contest.
If the House of Saud is genuinely concerned about having to take up for the Sunnis if we leave, we should use that as leverage to get the Saudis to make less mischief and actually play a constructive role. We are getting played.
December 21, 2006 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is based on magical thinking rather than evidence-based analysis. And it gets people killed."
So what was getting people killed in Afghanistan in the late 90s?
What was getting half a million people killed in Iraq for the last two decades?
What is getting people killed in Darfur today?
What is getting people killed in Uganda today?
Inaction, that's what.
Here is my opinion about inaction:
It has been an unmitigated disaster of immeasurable, epic, mind-boggling proportions.
In every way possible.
We will be living with its ugly results for decades.
December 21, 2006 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sharia law is just Islamic law. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been governed under some system of Islamic law, or combination of Islamic law and secular law, for 1400 years."
Exactly. Look how well that has worked out. Everywhere Sharia Law goes, it proves to be an anchor. We have had our Constitution and Free market economy for a little over 200 years and look where we are.
"Do you really think we should go to war against Sharia?"
We already are and it wasn't our choice. What do you think bin Laden, Aweys, Sadr, the IMU, Hizb ut Tahrir et al are doing? They are trying to spread Sharia law.
"Isn't the legal system of their own countries a matter for Muslims to decide?"
Muslims with guns, or Muslims without guns? I think we should take the side of the Muslims without guns.
If you don't understand the impact of what you are saying, here is some reading material for you:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-rape24nov24,1,1862913.story?coll=la-news-a_section
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050704-115126-3150r.htm
"Wouldn't Muslims rightly conclude that a war against the spread of Sharia is a war against Islam?"
If that is true, then Islam is not worth defending. I don't think it is true, though. There are millions of Muslims who believe women should learn to read, men can shave if they want, etc. They aren't all "chop off your hand" or "mutilate your genitals" types.
I think what we should be talking about on this blog is how do we get those moderate, Muslims to believe in what we offer?
How do we get people in Lebanon to believe in Liberal, free market, Constitutional Democracy instead of Sharia? I think first we have to believe in it. We have to believe in its power to transform people and societies. We have to believe in its empowering abilities. Most of us on this blog certainly do not.
Even if we believed that our system was a gift that we were lucky to have, how to do convince them to believe it? How do we win over the people in southern Iraq?
How do we win over the Somalis?
How do we win over the Uzbeks?
The dictator of Turkmenistan just died, which means those people now have an opportunity to transform their society. Will we help? How do we do that? Can we prevent Islamists from taking the country over?
I would love to hear ideas. I would love to hear creativity. Can we have one positive thread here or does everything have to be negative?