You are posting a comment about...
Did Iraq harm the "war on terror"?
"If the report had argued that Iraq has weakened the U.S. position because we are effectively abetting an Iranian-backed Shi'ite takeover of the country, and thus aiding rather than weakening the global jihad, that would be a defensible, indeed a cogent, position."
-- from Robert Spencer's comment on this report
Or if the report had argued that while the initial invasion of Iraq in order to scour for major weapons and disrupt relevant weapons projects was rational, remaining in Iraq, attempting to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to warring sectarian and ethnic parties when their mistrust, propensity for violence, inability to compromise, all of which has its roots in the attitudes and atmospherics naturally arising in societies suffused with Islam, was not only a mistake, but the very opposite of what, at this point, the Americans should wish to be doing. They should not be trying to improve the situation, to make things better, for Islamic societies, but to divide and demoralize them, wherever possible (and not by doing anything -- malign neglect will do the trick), so as to buy time for the Infidels to view these "demonstration projects" and come to their own conclusions.
There is much that is wrong with Iraq. And it is even true, no doubt, that it serves as a recruiting tool -- but so does everything else. The Pope, Israel, the Thai army, the Danish cartoons, the English police raids, the refusal to permit the hijab, the continued existence of Coptic Churches in Egypt, the new prep school being founded by King Abdullah on the Deerfield model, so very inattentive to Qur'anic memorization, so much more attentive to English, biology, and lacrosse, the failure of the Italian authorities to remove anti-Muhammad Dante from the school curriculum, the failure of this or that country to remove absolutely every conceivable obstacle to the campaigns of Da'wa, the insistence in some countries that the local laws --such as those about polygamy -- be observed, the insistence that Muslims should take oaths of allegiance to the local Infidel nation-state when that contravenes, insults even, the principle of sole loyalty owed by Muslims to Islam and to fellow Muslims.
Yesterday it was bases in Saudi Arabia. Today it may be Iraq. Tomorrow it may be bases in Kuwait or Qatar. It may be attempts to jam broadcasts, or prevent reception, of such menacing organs of the Ikhwan as al-Jazeera.
The report, one assumes, nowhere suggests that the situation of turmoil in Iraq is not to be deplored but welcomed, and that the real foolishness of the Bush Administration is the stubborn refusal of so many, taking their cue from Bush himself, who prides himself on his stubbornness, which he regards as a sterling quality, one he delights in polishing every day -- at the expense of the American taxpayers, the American army, and American interests in weakening the world-wide camp of Islam, not in making Iraq that Light Unto the Muslim Nations that Bush continues to hallucinate so maddeningly about, and so do those in his claque, who can no longer think straight. And of course, those who hate him are, alas, haters for all the wrong reasons, and even -- if such is possible -- even more wrong-headed than Bush.