21 Jul 2008
Hugh Fitzgerald
Still, one would like both McCain and Obama to be informed that every piece either of them writes about Iraq should include a definition of what, from the American or Infidel point of view, would constitute "victory" in Iraq. I want to know if their definition accords with mine -- to wit, that "victory" leads to a situation that weakens, by dividing and demoralizing, the Camp of Islam, and the more long-lasting that division and demoralization that results from sectarian and ethnic hostilities in Iraq, the better.
That is a clear definition, not vague at all, and the details have been repeatedly put on the Internet as to how this might be achieved, and what effect this might have outside Iraq, in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Kuwait, in Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon (for the sectarian clash), and among various non-Arab Muslim populations, including the Berbers and black African Muslims in Darfur, that the spectacle of a non-Arab people, the Kurds, throwing off the Arab yoke, who might be encouraged to go and do likewise.
21 Jul 2008
Artemis
Yes, I'm all for pushing Obama and McCain for details and particulars, and for a definition of "victory". I don't see a clear definition of "victory" in Obama's editorial, either.
Yes, he wants to withdraw from Iraq. That's a start, but why? What does he hope to accomplish? Apparently, it's still all about fighting everyone's favorite bogeymen, "the Taliban" and "Al Qaeda". There is this:
As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.
What does "accomplish the mission" refer to? Exactly what is the "nonmilitary assistance" that is going to help us "accomplish the mission"?
The preceding sentence is even more worrysome:
As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.
How will the "job in Afghanistan" ever be "finished"? What would that look like? How would it be accomplished? Will President Obama give a speech in front of another "Mission Accomplished" sign after we "get" Osama Bin Laden? Will our job be finished then? Is this all about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Obama's mind?
Obama's got some hits and some misses. Yes, get out of Iraq, as soon as humanly possible. Yes, "get" OBL. Yes, "get" as many Taliban and Al Qaeda members as possible wherever we find them, including in the homelands of our "good friends" Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Iraqis and Afghans are not our "friends". They do not deserve one penny of "nonmilitary assistance", if by that Obama means new bridges, soccer stadiums, schools, roads, and the rest. The day that the last card-carrying member of Al Qaeda is killed or captured, the "job" will not be finished, if that "job" is defined as securing the infidels from Islamic jihad in all its various guises, violent and non-violent. That job will never be finished. It is important that Obama understand that fact, and that he educate the rest of the infidels that there is no foreseeable end to jihad, there are only defensive steps to be taken as spelled out by Hugh Fitzgerald at NewEnglishReview.org and by Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch.org.
It is important that Obama understand that Al Qaeda is only one group of many; there is one thread that ties together Hizb'Allah in Lebanon, Ansar al-Islam in Iraq, Hamas in "Palestine", Lashkar-e-Toiba in Pakistan, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia, and so on. It's not the color of their skin, it's not their place of birth, it's not their language, it's not their level of education. The tie that binds them is their common religion. It is the holy, holy book that they all agree is the literal word of Allah, and the unambiguous passages it contains that mandate eternal war against the unbelievers.
We haven't yet seen McCain's editorial, but there is little hope that it will be any better; it may well be worse. Last week, McCain criticised Obama's statements regarding conducting military operations inside Pakistan, saying that those type of "reckless comments" make it more difficult to get cooperation from our strong ally, Pakistan. Very disturbing; we await the full McCain editorial, whenever the NYT deigns to relax those high standards.
