The number of visitors to this blog rose steadily by about 10 percent per week. Yesterday the number of visitors took a 25 percent dent however, especially in visits from the USA. I guess my message about the lost war in Iraq was not a popular one.
Still I stand by my endorsement of Van Creveld's assessment.
The war in Iraq is not going well. There is no victory in sight. I saw some horrible footage yesterday from a film made by Jihadi's. It was shot of American soldiers on the streets in Iraq in armoured vehicles and humvees. They were getting shot by Jihadi snipers. The footage was accompanied by religious chanting in Arabic. The footage of well-equipped US soldiers with million dollar Equipment and sensors standing around seeing nothing is an illustration of the warnings of Van Creveld.
What to do against the Jihad against the West? The democratisation of the Middle East is not working. I have always maintained that it is impossible. Because Iraqi and most other Middle Eastern societies are too fractured along religious (Sunni, Shia) and tribal and ethnic lines to be able to live in a democratic society. Francis Fukuyama wrote a book "Trust" about the necessity of trust and understanding between citizens in a society in order for people to co-operate vulontarily. This is a necessary precondition of democracy. Middle Easterners do not trust one another. High levels of trust are only found in Europe, European derived societies such as Australia and Japan. That is why they need dictators to run societies. That is why civil wars break out.
That is why democracy in Iraq won't work. So if we pursue a defence against Jihad we must shed our illusions about the possibility of democratisation of reshaping the enemy in our own image. The US Army is not an instrument of social reform. Conservatives should understand this. There will be new terror attacks on Western targets. Globally. And something needs to be done. Otherwise people in Europe and the US will lose confidence in their governments and we get instability in our homelands.
9 comments:
Your opinion is valuable but very dangerous. If you are right and democracy is not possible in Muslim countries if they go on attacking the West and not assimilating when they live in the West then...the only solution is their total destruction.
I think it is better to be patient and wait what happens. You are too sure that things cannot change and I am very sure on the opposite. Let us wait until the game is over.
Yes Nouille, the US Army is fighting "asymetric war" as they call it. Both sides fight according to completely different rulesets. The US Soldier do not have a chance, because they do not know where to hit the enemy where it hurts. Instead they hit civilians. The survirors become recruits for the Jihadi's. Pointless war.
The rest of the world does not want to become like the West. They understand our rules, such as the geneva convention and turn them against us. We have to completely rethink our way of living (immigration) and fighting in order to counter the challenge they pose.
We Westerners have always been smart, flexible and creative. In the end we will surprise them and ourselves with the answers that we will come up with.
J Maria,
why must they be destroyed? What kind of real threat do they pose to us? The biggest danger would be if they would be peaceful. Because then they would take over Europe demographically. But because they are violent, our civilisation is waking up again.
Spain has shown how to deal with the demographic threat in 1609. No reason to destroy anything or anybody. On the contrary moral destruction is the gravest danger for a civilisation especially ours with its basis in Christian guilt.
Desmond,
I recognise what you say about homogenity (cultural and ethnic) is a precondition for liberty. And I understand the consequences: cessession, expulsion and assimilation. These are not strict binary choices but can be pursued at the same time.
Things are going badly in Iraq, because the American people have stopped supporting the war. The goals for the war are not realistic. To democratise Iraq is impossible, both if tried by outside or inside forces. And to just occupy it in order to suck out the natural resources will meet with understandable disgusted opposition from the Democrats AND most of the rank and file of the Republicans.
It is got to end. Oil can be bought on the free market for a price that is determined by market forces. No need for military antics. Occupation do not increase the size of Iraqi reserves. If the occupation serves the interests of oil companies and other big business interest that means that US Soldiers are giving up their lives and souls for a rapacous oligarchy. Their souls the soldiers will corrupt because of the transgressions against the local populace that are a natural and unavoidable fact of any occupation. Especially where cultures are far apart as between Middle Easterners and Americans.
A difference between the British and the US is that the US has been thoroughy demoralized from within by the 1968 counterculture. And even Britain handed over most internal power to a Iraqi regent. In 1941 they had to send in troops to topple the Iraqi regime because of a Pro-Nazi coup d'etat.
I did not know that 40.000 Brits lost their lives in Iraq. Where they partly (largely) non-white troops like Indians?
Well, I think that the American public is losing its confidence in ultimate victory.
You are right that that democracy does not exist in a binary continuum. Neither does occupation. If the Americans pull back out of the urban centres to bases in the desert areas things will improve.
American fire power will be effective in the desert and not hit civilians. There will be no possibilities for guerilla's to sneak up on the Americans. The Americans can still guarantuee the oil flow and leave the administration of urban areas to militia's and the Iraqi army. Most of the oil wells are in the Kurdish North so the flow of oil can be secured through Turkey and Jordan.
I am definately maintaining that the US should give up its strategy of democratising Iraq by using the US Army as an instrument of social reform. Government intervention is anathema to conservatives when it is about the state reforming America's population. That a "conservative" government thinks it can use a state service to reform a FOREIGN population goes against all the tenets of conservatism. This shows that the core beliefs of Democrats and Republicans are closer to each other than many think. Not a good thing.
If the US use their occupation of Iraq for the stabilisation of the oil flow the question remains: "why does the US Army have to do that in Iraq and not in other countries". And who is benefitting from that stable oil flow and who is paying the price?
I am looking forward to your answers on those questions, Desmond.
Desmond,
I added a link to a paper on Israel's experiences in Lebanon, between 1982 and 2000. It is a long read, about 2 hrs, but quite relevant for what the US Army is encountering now in Iraq.
The link's name is: "Hisbollah defeats Israeli Army 1982-2000"
You will find it on the right hand site of this blog near the bottom of the "Anglosphere links"
There are other similar links to studies about 4th generation warfare (4GW) by the USMC.
J Maria,
it is anoying to have Muslim pirate states raiding European coasts. But it is also good. If Muslims raid us we can convince our people to defend ourselves from attacks by the outsiders. We have the moral high ground. With the moral high ground our position will be sustained. If we occupy foreign lands and force the inhabitants of those countries to comply with our will THEY will occupy the moral high ground and OUR morale will be undermined by those of a softer nature. We will bleed and lose in such a conflict and weigh our souls down with guilt.
Maybe Europe is going to lose. But consider the following. Some countries are strongly affected by Muslim immigrants, like The Netherlands and France. Others are less affected. If The Netherlands goes down, what will be the effect on Germany and other European counties? They will become fiercely anti Islamic and support the White Dutch population against the Muslim overlords and oppressors. This will be great to win over the hearts and minds of the waverers. Losing an European county is the best that can happen to our cause. When Spain was occupied by the Muslims wasn't it Aragon and Castilia who began the reconquesta? So it must be in Europe. First we must lose something. Then we will lose our arrogance and really start fighting against the Left and our foreign Islamic garrisons. Be patient my friend. Be patient.
Just think about the anxiety in the Hearts of the Leftists. Every time something (New Orleans, Paris Riots, Danish Riots, Murder of Van Gog, London bombings, Aussie Riots) happens that exposes the failure and the lies of Multiculturalism they become more nervous and doubting. We will win, survive and prosper if we keep Truth as our ally.
We should not be afraid to speak the Truth as we see it. Even if it means censure or jail. Because the future will prove us right. We should thank God because we have the opportunity to be prophets and martyrs. What more could we ask for?
Thanks for the sources you provide Desmond. They are excellent.
I wonder if you are being cynical about the "perfect symbiosis" part. Basically your rationale has been that US forces are needed to stabilize the oil flow. And that US forces are used because of Asian countries financing US debt.
On the medium term this is not a stable situation at all. The value of the US defense budget is much higher than the export value of the Iraqi oil. Oil account for not more than 4-5 percent of GNP of Westen Nations. If it rises to 7 or 8 percent well, tough. It is no reason to fight a war over.
In the end the US will have to adjust their spending to their means. US debt is getting out of control. It is already causing interest rates to go up and investment to go down.
The main benificiaries are Japan, China, American parents and big companies, whether companies in the oil business, in services (Halliburton), Mercenaries (Blackwater) or Defence and Aerospace.
The US Taxpayer has to foot the bill, in order to pay the defense budget and in order to service the debt. Corporate profits and lower textile prices are no adequate justification. Meanwhile lower middle class American boys are killing and dying to forward a political system that is foreign to the Middle East. When they come back to their jobs in Red State America they may well find it has been taken by a Mexican or other immigrant. The corporate backers of the Republican Party are selling out the interests of Middle America.
Let the Shi'ites and the Kurds secure that oil and work out a system that works for them. It is much cheaper. And they are better at it than the US Army, because they understand the enemy. It is also better for relations with the Middle East.
This war is a "Tragedy of the Commons".
Post a Comment