If you see this text then you need to update your flash player.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
How Long?

The seemingly endless inability of those who make American policy to make sense of what the Egyptians or Saudis or other Arabs and Muslims say, and to refuse to interpret things correctly, becomes ever more remarkable.

For example, the article below shows us that Rice et al. think of Egypt as desiring "stability" in Iraq, and sharing in American ideas of what the outcome should be. Don't be silly. Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni regimes, only use the word "stability" because it pleases the Americans, and using that word, the Sunnis can suggest that "stability" can only be obtained by steady American pressure on the Shi'a. What is desired by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, what they are working towards by any means available to them (and that includes permitting Saudi "volunteers" to go to Iraq, and sending money to shore up all the various Sunni groups as long as they are fighting the Shi'a), is not "stability" but a Sunni ascendance, or rather re-ascendance, in Iraq. If that can be achieved by manipulating the Americans, fine. If not, other means -- including men, money, and matériel, will be sent to Sunnis in Iraq. Not because Mubarak or the Al-Saud, or any of those whom they rule over, are horrified by the troglodytes of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not because they find Moqtada al-Sadr repulsive in every respect. No, only because the Shi'a should not be allowed to possess Baghdad, should not be allowed to rule Iraq. Moral abhorrence does not exist. What counts in judging regime or state or individual X is always the same three questions for Sunni Arabs:

1) Is X Muslim?

2) Is X Muslim and Arab, the best kind of Muslim?

3) Is X Muslim and Arab and Sunni, the best kind of Arab Muslim?

The Sunni Arabs inside and outside Iraq will never acquiesce in Shi'a control -- a control made inevitable by the American removal of Saddam Hussein and the Sunni Arab despotism he presided over, one disguised, or wrongly interpreted by so many in the West as, a "secular" dictatorship, truly open to all. Nonsense and Re-nonsense.  

Of course "the Arabs" will continue -- will always -- disappoint Rice, and Bush, and those who succeed Rice, and succeed Bush.

There is a deep failure to study, to understand, to listen to the right authorities and avoid the apologists. This is costing a lot of money: $880 billion in Iraq. A lot of lives: 3700 dead Americans, and nearly 30,000 wounded, many of them requiring life-time care.

How long is this irresponsibility and incapacity of our rulers be endured?

Posted on 11:40 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Comments
31 Jul 2007
Send an emaildel

At LGF, Fjordman wrote: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26486#c0034

"You know, I'm almost reaching the conclusion that some of those crazy lefties may have been right for once; that many members of the Bush administration have too close personal and business ties to the Saudis to do anything substantial to confront Islam. The other alternative is that they are just plain stupid and don't have a clue about what's going on.

I'm not sure which scenario is scarier."

Fjordman may not have read Hugh's Esdrujula Explanation. Beyond cupidity and stupidy, are timidity and rigidity, or  various combinations of these esdrujulan (?) words (and I'd add venality). They just about seem to cover the remarkable failures of our American government to act in our nation's interest . 

This administration will be gone after the next general election.

Which candidate for President has the least intolerable combination of the above words, within their character?