Iran sentences convert to Christianity to death

Youcef Nadarkhani, an Iranian Muslim who converted to Christianity is convicted to the death for this. The convert refused to go back to Islam even to save his life.

There is a letter from Nadarkhani from last June.

Turkey leaves the Pro-Western alliance

Caroline Glick has a post up at the Jerusalem Post explaining that Turkey is not a Pro-Western country anymore:

Once the apotheosis of a pro-Western, dependable Muslim democracy, this week Turkey officially left the Western alliance and became a full member of the Iranian axis.

It isn't that Ankara's behavior changed fundamentally in recent days. There is nothing new in its massive hostility toward Israel and its effusive solicitousness toward the likes of Syria and Hamas. Since the Islamist AKP party first won control over the Turkish government in the 2002 elections, led by AKP chairman Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the Turks have incrementally and inexorably moved the formerly pro-Western Muslim democracy into the radical Islamist camp populated by the likes of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, al-Qaida and Hamas.

What made Turkey's behavior this week different from its behavior in recent months and years is that its attacks were concentrated, unequivocal and undeniable for everyone outside of Israel's scandalously imbecilic and flagellant media.

.....

In February 2006, when Erdogan became the first international figure to host Hamas leaders on an official state visit after the jihadist group won the Palestinian elections, Jerusalem sought to explain away his diplomatic aggression. Israeli leaders claimed that Erdogan's red carpet treatment for mass murderers who seek the physical destruction of Israel was not due to any inherent hostility on the part of the AKP regime toward Israel. Rather, it was argued that Ankara simply supported democracy and that the AKP, as a formerly outlawed Islamist party, felt an affinity toward Hamas as a Muslim underdog.

.....

But Turkey wasted no time in making fools of them. On Monday, 11 Turkish government ministers descended on Syria to sign a pile of cooperation agreements with Iran's Arab lackey. The Foreign Ministry didn't even have a chance to write apologetic talking points explaining that brazen move before Syria announced it was entering a military alliance with Turkey and would be holding a joint military exercise with the Turkish military. Speechless in the wake of Turkey's move to hold military maneuvers with its enemy just two days after it canceled joint training with Israel, Jerusalem could think of no mitigating explanation for the move.

.....

Erdogan's anti-Israel and anti-Semitic blows were followed on Tuesday evening by Turkey's government-controlled TRT1 television network's launch of a new prime-time series portraying IDF soldiers as baby- and little girl-killers who force Palestinian women to deliver stillborn babies at roadblocks and line up groups of Palestinians against walls to execute them by firing squad.

.....

TURKEY'S BREAK with the West; its decisive rupture with Israel and its opposition to the US in Iraq and Iran was predictable. Militant Islam of the AKP variety has been enjoying growing popularity and support throughout Turkey for many years. The endemic corruption of Turkey's traditional secular leaders increased the Islamists' popularity. Given this domestic Turkish reality, it is possible that Erdogan and his fellow Islamists' rise to power was simply a matter of time.

But even if the AKP's rise to power was eminently predictable, its ability to consolidate its control over just about every organ of governance in Turkey as well as what was once a thriving free press, and change completely Turkey's strategic posture in just seven years was far from inevitable. For these accomplishments the AKP owes a debt of gratitude to both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as to the EU.

The Bush administration ignored the warnings of secular Turkish leaders in the country's media, military and diplomatic corps that Erdogan was a wolf in sheep's clothing. Rather than pay attention to his past attempts to undermine Turkey's secular, pro-Western character and treat him with a modicum of suspicion, after the AKP electoral victory in 2002 the Bush administration upheld the AKP and Erdogan as paragons of Islamist moderation and proof positive that the US and the West have no problem with political Islam. Erdogan's softly peddled but remorselessly consolidated Islamism was embraced by senior American officials intent on reducing democracy to a synonym for elections rather than acknowledging that democracy is only meaningful as a system of laws and practices that engender liberal egalitarianism.

In a very real sense, the Bush administration's willingness to be taken in by Erdogan paved the way for its decision in 2005 to pressure Israel to allow Hamas to participate in the Palestinian elections and to coerce Egypt into allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in its parliamentary poll.

In Turkey itself, the administration's enthusiastic embrace of the AKP meant that Erdogan encountered no Western opposition to his moves to end press freedom in Turkey; purge the Turkish military of its secular leaders and end its constitutional mandate to preserve Turkey's secular character; intimidate and disenfranchise secular business leaders and diplomats; and stack the Turkish courts with Islamists. That is, in the name of its support for its water-downed definition of democracy, the US facilitated Erdogan's subversion of all the Turkish institutions that enabled liberal norms to be maintained and kept Turkey in the Western alliance.

As for the Obama administration, since entering office in January it has abandoned US support for democracy activists throughout the world, in favor of a policy of pure appeasement of US adversaries at the expense of US allies. In keeping with this policy, President Barack Obama paid a preening visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed the Islamization of Turkish foreign policy that has moved the NATO member into the arms of Teheran's mullahs. Taken together, the actions of the Bush and Obama White Houses have demoralized Westernized Turks, who now believe that their country is doomed to descend into the depths of Islamist extremism. As many see it, if they wish to remain in Turkey, their only recourse is to join the Islamist camp and add their voices to the rising chorus of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism sweeping the country.

Then there is the EU. For years Brussels has been stringing Turkey along, promising that if it enacts sufficient human rights reforms, the 80-million strong Muslim country will be permitted to join Europe. But far from inducing more liberal behavior on the part of Turkey, those supposedly enlightened reforms have paved the way for the Islamist ascendance in the country. By forcing Turkey to curb its military's role as the guarantor of Turkish secularism, the EU took away the secularists' last line of defense against the rising tide of the AKP. By forcing Turkey to treat its political prisoners humanely and cancel the death penalty, the EU eroded the secularists' moral claim to leadership and weakened their ability to effectively combat both Kurdish and Islamist terror.

At the same time, by consistently refusing to permit Turkey to join the EU, despite Ankara's moves to placate its political correctness, Brussels discredited still further Turkey's secularists. When after all their self-defeating and self-abasing reforms, Europe still rejected them, the Turks needed to find a way to restore their wounded honor. The most natural means of doing so was for the Turks writ large to simply turn their backs on Europe and move toward their Muslim brethren.

.....

Read more on Turkey joining Iran and its allies.

Snouck's Commentary: The fact that Turkey is now becoming an ally of Iran makes it obviously impossible for Turkey to stay in NATO or to join the EU. However, the treasonous leadership of NATO and the EU will allow Turkey to stay in those supra-national organisations.

Gates of Vienna: Whither Germany?

Baron Bodissey has allowed a German Blogger, Furor Teutonica, to enlighten us about the Pro-Deutschland party which is currently being formed in Germany and which opposes Islamisation of their Nation.

In a comment another German blogger, the Editrx from the Roncesvalles blog reacts:
"As I have pointed out countless times, there ARE NO "conservatives" in Germany. Never were, are not, never will be." (part of a longer comment).

I wrote the following reply:
So you have countless times made a categoral statement that Germans are into enternity unable to form a viable Conservative or Pro-German movement which is part of the greater family of Western nations.

You motivate this by pointing towards the Nazi-era co-operation between NS and Arab Leaders against the Jews and others (Serbs). And the ongoing co-operation between the German Left and annialist Islam (Iran and the Palestinians).

You further motivate your POV by the Germans never having been occupied and reformed by the Romans.

("The relative absence of the mellowing, civilisatory Roman influence serves here to explain a cruel and ruthless streak in the Germans that seems to be absent, or not so prevalent, in other European people.")

First please tell me how does this Roman monopoly on a nations' soundness works?

The Romans were a relatively civilized force in their time. They still were annialationist in their treatment of enemies, putting men, women and children to the sword with careless abandon. This fate befell ancient Israel. Two times (70 and 135 AD).

The Germans on the other hand had a fairly mellow reputation as a friendly and pastoral people as evidenced for instance by Edward Gibbons in the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

A reputation that goes back perhaps 2.500 years.

The Germans ruined that reputation in the Twentieth Century. To be precise in the period 1933 - 1945. That is 12 years of history, a scope that is even narrower than the Quran's.

Secondly, the many examples that you show of Leftist Jew and Israel hatred are not German-specific. A similar pattern can be observed in ANY Western country. Therefore it does not prove the unredeemably Anti-Western character of the German nation.

I would like to state that it IS possible for the German Nation to run on a pro-Western Course.

Twenty years ago there was no Pro-Western movement in the UK, the Netherlands or Denmark either and the only ones standing up to Mass-immigration and Islamisation were those marinated in the brown sauce.

This situation has been corrected either by new Parties without Brown roots (Netherlands and Denmark) or Parties with suspect beginnings gradually distancing themselves from suspect roots and cleaning up (UK).

Oh and neither Denmark nor the dominant North of the Netherlands was ever occupied by the Romans and taught by them.

There is no categoral reason why a German political movement could not lead the German Nation to a Pro-Western (including Pro-Israel) stance. Either by forming a clean roots party or by a dirty party that cleans up as it broadens its base of support. Pro-Deutschland may be either.

Anti-Jihadists have got nothing to lose and Germany to win when we keep this possibility of their and our national redemption open.

The Church of the Second World War

Erwin at the Kleinverzet blog quoted a Frontpagemag contributor, quoting an Arab Christian:
"I think there are two ways to avoid [this Armageddon]. One can be a major war which the West can win. As in World War Two, had the West attacked the Germans in 1936 the war would have lasted not more than a month with very few casualties. Their procrastination resulted in World War II with all its consequences. Eventually, the West will have to tackle the Iranians, it is better that they do it now to avert a world catastrophe later. With Iran defeated the Islamic onslaught will lose its base, and it may be the turning point in history to defeat the menace of extreme Islam. The majority of the Moslems don't want this confrontation anyway.
I think he's right with that last assertion. But as long as the West will not stand up to the more committed elements within islam, and especially Iran, I am afraid most muslim citizens will bet on what seems to be the strong horse. There's some good advise to our politicians: You want Dutch muslim citizens on your side? Show them you have the stuff to take on and defeat the scum that would foist the Khalifa upon us all."

Just as there is a Church of the Left, there is a Church of the Second World War in the West. Adherents the creed are wont to make analogies between situations faced today with situations from the conflict against Rightwing totalitarianism. The Second World War is the "good war". Everybody agrees that the Nazis were evil and had to be defeated. Also the Second World War was won by a coalition of the British Empire, the USA and in those we recognize what still are still major nations of military capability. The fact that murderous Soviet Russia was also a part of the coalition is usually glossed over.

OK. Some hard basic truths not particularly difficulty to grasp:
1. The Second World War is over.
2. The Second World War ended 60 years ago.
3. Islam is not the Axis, it is a religion with 1,3 billion adherents
4. Because Islam is a different social organism than a alliance of nation states, industrial war by mass armies, the model of war that defeated the Axis, will not work defeating Islam. Islam fights in God's space, and industrial war cannot reach there.
5. Iran is not the leader of Islam. In fact Iran is Shia, while the rest of Islam is mostly Sunni. So to say that Islam will be defeated once Iran is defeated is not just wrong, it is silly. There are only 70 million Iranians and 1,3 Billion Muslims.
6. The USA just lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's right folks. They lost it. They lost the support of the home front, as evidenced by the recent American elections. The US politicians on both sides are just procratinating pulling the troops out.
7. Israel just lost in Lebanon. Again. The Israelis these days follow the American pattern of war slavishly, which contributes to their downfall.

8. Wars lost by (semi-) Western nations/coalitions since 1945:
Algeria (the French)
Indonesia (the Dutch)
Vietnam (twice) (the French and the USA)
Afghanistan (twice) (the Russians)
Lebanon (twice) (the Israelis)

A few I do not care to list.

In all these conflicts the West lost to opponents vastly inferior in firepower. France, USA and Russia were absolutely ruthless in the pursuit of their war aims.
9. The USA can attack and bomb Iran. They can occupy it. They can destroy its army and infrastructure. The result will be that more US soldiers will die and that US public opinion will turn even more against the war.
10. Technology is spreading and becomes more and more accessible to Non-Western nations. This means that not just Iran, but a whole range of non-Western nations will soon possess nuclear arms, including Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentine. The monopoly on this technology can not be American. One can not prevent knowledge to be aquired by eager learners.
11. Economic and political power is flowing from the USA, mostly to Asia. The US only has a edge only in military power. That is not enough to benefit from a war, even if it was won. If Iran blocks the strait of Hormuz the oil price will strongly rise. The American economy is on the brink of recession anyway. Going to war with Iran will clinch it.
12. The USA is a proposition nation. The creed of the USA since the 1960ies has been that there is no dominant religion or ethnic group that is leading in the USA or has a special claim to it. What is keeping the USA together apart from mere habit is a vision of shared and rising prosperity. A major economic bust may tear its society apart.
13. The USA lives on credit. It runs a huge current account deficit with Asian countries. China holds massive currency holdings. US Treasury bonds. Dollars. If they lose faith in the USA's capacity to guarantuee the value of these reserves or if they are cross with the USA they will start to sell these holdings. Invading Iran will frighten and anger the Chinese leadership. They will not easily pull the rug from under the American economy. After all only America can buy up their stuff. But a war and an invasion in Iran might well do the trick. Iran is a part of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a Chinese led alliance of Non-Western nations.
14. The West was economically and population wise much more dominant in 1945 than in 2007. These days the Asiatics and Islam are much bigger chunks of humanity.
15. Invading Iran will cause Iran's population to rally around the flag and the mosque. Currently the Iranian regime is almost as unpopular as Bush's government. It is much to the interest of the current clique to be invaded.

All these points argue that the outcome of a conflict with Iran will end in desaster. The West has no means to compell Iran or the larger Muslim world to submit to its will. But the West is in great danger of pulling itself apart by its suicidal immigration policy and the destruction of its armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally:
"You want Dutch muslim citizens on your side? Show them you have the stuff to take on and defeat the scum that would foist the Khalifa upon us all."

That is odd. It seems here that Kleinverzet wants to argue that it is in the interest of the USA to impress Dutch Muslims. Or perhaps that the Dutch government confront Iran. I will deal with the former. Even if the US Government thought it is in their interest to intimidate Dutch Muslims by invading Iran then it still would not work. There is no connection between Dutch Sunni Muslim immigrants communities and Shia Iran. And Dutch Muslims oppose Dutch culture and society not because Iran inspires them to do so, but because their Quran based faith inspires them to do so. Because they get away with it and their numbers are growing by the day. If current trends are not addressed by closing the borders and expelling Muslim communities Dutch national society will be torn apart or Islamized. I expect the former and fear the latter.

The strong horse in the Muslim / West equation is the pitting of the community of the faithfull against the community of the hedonists and decadents. No matter how weak the faithfull, if there is no will of resistance on the Dutch side, the Muslims can only win.

Finally the leadership of the West is firmly in thrall of the WW2/industrial war paradigma, despite the fact that it keeps losing its wars or is unable to turn military victories in political advantage. The West seems unable to learn.

Rudyard Kipling witnessed the same in the British Army after the Anglo-Boer war before the First World War. He wrote a poem about it called: "Rimmon". Look it up if you are poetically inclined. It is a commentary on the Bible story of Naaman, the Syrian, who is cured by the prophet Elisa from the leprosy that ails him.

Naaman could not learn from what happened to him.

Terrorists with Nukes

An ESSENTIAL read: this is the end of the nation-state, as we know it.

A Frontpage Magazine symposium on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not to states such as North-Korea or Iran. But to terrorist groups: such as al-Qaeda.

Paul Williams at FrontPage:"there is empirical proof that al-Qaeda possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. In Herat, they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested while crossing the Allenby Bridge toward the checkpoint at Ramallah in Israel in a rusty old Volkswagen van. Within the van, Mossad discovered a bomb which turned out to be a highly sophisticated plutonium-implosion device with an explosive yield of 10 kilotons (equivalent to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima)."

AND

Hamid Mir at FrontPage: "In the next few years, I came to know that Al Qaeda had a big brigade of nuclear and chemical experts who conducted a dirty bomb test in the mountains of Kunar in 2000."

Al-Queda has a group of nuclear scientists from Pakistan's nuclear establishement, working on development and maintainance of nuclear weapons. They are part of Dr. Khan's network of nuclear technologists.

The origin of the weapons is unsupervised Soviet stocks. Supervision of these weapons stocks was interrupted in the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1990. Germany has wisely funded a program to prevent these weapons and technologies from falling in the wrong hands, but this has clearly not been enough.

Apart from the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear weapons have never been used in war. The USA could bomb Japan without fear for retaliation or what is called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

A transsnational network like al-Queda is not a target. This makes the threat from Al-Quada a VERY serious threat, unlike the threat from North-Korea or Iran, which are sitting ducks, just like the Nation States of Europe and North America.

Al-Queda can attack, but being so dispersed and invisible hidden in the cultural fabric of Middle Eastern societies and it colonies elsewhere, it cannot be counter-attacked. Think about that.

Read the whole article on nuclear weapons prolifirating to networked transnational organisations HERE.

A strengthening Anti-American coalition

The response to the terror attack on New York in 2001 was the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries were not able to resist the US military superiority and succumbed to occupation.

Both however are massive liabilities to the US, eating away resources.

The ruling elites of Non-Western nations looked on in initial alarm at the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Their fear was for their own hides in case the US might try something similar with their own nations, removing the elites from power and bringing Iraq-style disorder to their nations.

Already before the war in the Middle East there was concern in China and Russia about US-hegemonism. In order to strengthen themselves these nations, which are growing in economic and societal power and centeredness started to improve their co-operation.

Initially the co-operation took the form of weapons sales by the cash-starved Russians to the Chinese, plus the transfer of military technology to the Chinese military. Later the co-operation was solidified in the form of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), a formal alliance with a permanent secretariat and staff, based in the capital of China. Kazakhastan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan also became members of the alliance.

Important goals of the alliance is furthering trade between the member states and the fight against terrorism against the member states. China is a dynamic economic and monetary powerhouse and an increasingly strong competitor of Western Nations. Russia is also becoming economically stronger, while it also has technological and military production strength. It furthermore has vast oil reserves, which are increasingly becoming scarce, hence the rising price of oil. The other nations in the alliance are also strong in oil and commodities, underwriting the economic expansion of the more prosperous members of SCO.

Recently Iran, India, Mongolia and Pakistan became members of SCO. This means that the alliance now borders on US occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Four members of SCO have nuclear weapons (Russia, China, Pakistan and India). The alliance gives Iran enormous strategic depth.

The US is under pressure of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And under pressure of Sunni nationalist and Islamic groups of fighters. These groups are fighting in a highly dispersed pattern, in order to nullify the US lead in firepower.

The US forces fighting the Sunnis in and around Bagdad, the core of the Sunni demographic in Iraq are depending on a long supply line to the port city of Basra on the Persian Gulf. Astride the supply line lie the Shia villages, towns and cities. The Shias thus control US logistics. Weapons, food, spare parts, re-inforcements, fuel, medical evacuation can be turned of if the Shia Mullahs. The Shia Mullahs have been put in power by the US organised elections. And by the dismantling of the old Iraqi Army and the nationalist Baath party, which left religious and tribal groupings as the only forms of social and political organisation in Iraq.

Iran is also able to cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world due to their ability to interdict shipping when it travels through the Hormus Straits, the bottleneck for transporting Iraqi, Kuwaiti, Iranian and most of Saudi Arabia's and Gulf State oil deliveries. Just threatening the flow of oil to Asia and the West would send the oil price sky high, slowing down investment in the US economy and hurting the US labour market, which is already under pressure from out of control Mexican immigration.

The US has a technological edge over Iran, militarily. It will be able to destroy Iranian air defense easily and defeat the Iranian Army in the field. However it will run in far greater trouble than it is currently in when it tries to occupy Iran's population centres and faces a new urban guerrilla from its 68 million population.

And then the Iranians will be able to pull the plug on the US Army in Iraq's logistics lifeline and deny the world economy of its oil in a market that has no swing capacity, as in 1973.

The threats that the US have uttered against Iran on Israel's behalf are essentially empty.

The Church speaks out. In Australia

Cardinal George Pell has written a thoughtful piece on the confrontation between immigrant Islam and secular Australia. He enumerates the usual problematic nature of Islam, its offensive, universalist notions, its connection between violence and spirituality, its emphasis on procreation and its ability to sustain high birth rates in connection to the low Western birth rates. A most salient paragraph in my opinion is:

"These two examples show that there is a whole range of factors, some of them susceptible to influence or a change in direction, affecting the prospects for a successful Islamic engagement with democracy. Peace with respect for human rights are the most desirable end point, but the development of democracy will not necessarily achieve this or sustain it. This is an important question for the West as well as for the Muslim world. Adherence to what George Weigel has called “a thin, indeed anorexic, idea of procedural democracy”[21] can be fatal here. It is not enough to assume that giving people the vote will automatically favour moderation, in the short term at least[22]. Moderation and democracy have been regular partners in Western history, but have not entered permanent and exclusive matrimony and there is little reason for this to be better in the Muslim world, as the election results in Iran last June and the elections in Palestine in January reminded us."

"Belief in a thin, [...] procedural democracy". The idea that society, organised human life can be reduced to a simple procedure, a ritual, is one of the biggest threats of the West to itself.

There were the usual nauseating cries from the Left demanding that the Cardinal be punished for speaking out, because naturally the Left knows better and everybody disagreeing with them is an idiot who has to be silenced.

Such a nice thing that Truth has been contracted out to the Left. Saves everyone a lot of thinking for themselves.

An Osiraq style attack

IK:
Snouck - What are your views about pulling off an Osirak ?

(IK refers to the 1981 attack by 12 Israeli F-16 Fighters on the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Bagdad. The plant was used by the Iraqi's to built nuclear weapons. The attack destroyed the nuclear core of the reactor with stunning accuracy, just before it was going to be used to burn uranium).

Snouck:
Very difficult. I understand that the Iranians are hiding their facility deep underground and that presently there are not weapons able to penetrate so deeply, neither conventional (bunker busters) nor nuclear weapons. So disabling the Iranian nuclear program would require a military occupation of areas in Iran to search for the facilities and to destroy them. It would be difficult and risky to pull off, especially if the facilities would not be found quickly. Facilities hidden in urban areas would be most difficult to dismantle, due to the difficulty of fighting in urban terrain.

The new Communists

A good piece by Paul Craig Roberts about the ongoing campaign of the Bush government and their propaganda machine to create havoc in the Middle East by threatening to invade Iran, while growing increasingly authoritarian at home as evidence by the Patriot Act and the war propaganda on TV. The US Forces have great difficulty to defeat the insurgency by the 5 million Sunni Muslim minority already. Why invade Iran with its 70 million inhabitants, 35 million of which are Persians and another 20 million are Azerbaidjanis with good relations with the Persian ethnics, so finding local allies will not be so easy.

The stated intention of Iran to acquire Nuclear weapons is used as a motive. However, Israeli Professor of Military history Martin van Creveld already foresaw in 2003 that invading Afghanistan and Iraq would cause the whole region, Syria, Turkey and even Greece to develop nuclear weapons, if not in defense against the USA, than in defense against its nuclear armed neighbours. That is because Nuclear weapons are the perfect deterrent against the US Armed forces. So the predicament that Bush finds himself in, an Iran working on its own Nuclear weapons, is caused by the VERY strategy of invasion that the US has been using so far.

There is no indication that the Sunni insurgency or Al-Queda in Iraq is being overcome by the US Army. The US Army is fighting the wrong kind of enemy in the wrong kind of battlefield. The enemy is a weak, lightly armed invisible force with good intelligence and reasonable or good understanding of local culture and the battle field is a cluttered, dirty city scape that defies the use of observation enhancing instruments, such as radar, infrared, night sights that is the strength of an army armed by a modern light industry production base.

Finally there is really little hope for victory even if the US had the right kind of military force and was fighting on a battle field more suited to the type of warfare that is its strong suit. A military victory has to be followed by political and social acceptance of the dominance of the victor. Because the West and the world of Islam are Ancient enemies a Western victory will never be seen as letigimate by a local population. In fact the only populations that will see US dominance as legitimate are the Middle Eastern Christians.

Snouck is not some peacenik pinko, I consider myself to the right of such light-weight, hippy jokers as Attila the Hun, Djengis Khan and Mohammed al Rasul, those women. But to create a new enemy and to fight them in a similarly unsuited battlefield for a goal that is impossible to attain is not a good idea. My prediction is that if the Bush Administration continues with its intention to make Iran comply to its will by using military force. A hand will appear out of nothing and in the Senate the writing will be on the wall:

MENE MENE TEKEL UFARSIN - Bush's Kingdom will be parcelled up and divided.

The way out in Iraq

How to win the war in Iraq

The war in Iraq is going badly for the USA. After having defeated the Iraqi Army quite easily the Americans have a hard time establishing peace and order in Iraq. A small number (about 20.000 to 30.000) of insurgents keep inflicting losses on American and coalition troops, on the new American sponsored and trained Iraqi Army and on the Iraqi population. What to do?

First we have to check what the goal is of the USA in Iraq. The cause of the war is clear, it is the attack by political Sunni Islam on the USA on 9/11. The Bush administration connected the attack on the twin towers first with the rulers in Afghanistan and then with the rulers of Iraq. Also the Bush administration alleged that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be used to attack the USA again.

It is now clear to everyone that there were no WMD in Iraq. There have been elections both in Afghanistan and in Iraq so by democratic logic the problem should be over and the American Forces should be able to withdraw from the Middle East.

But nobody sees it quite so. Not the Americans who dare not to withdraw although they want to, not the new governments and not the Islamists who continue to attack and inflict losses on the American and pro American forces and terror on the population.

The American government has to find a way to convince everyone that they have won and resistance is futile. To do that at home in America is not so difficult, the Bush administration controls most of Mainstream Media there. But they have to convince the Islamists they have won.

I figured out a simple, step by step strategy that might just do it.

If it has not been done yet, get serious about setting up a intelligence organisation in Iraq, concentrating on spying on the Sunni population. 20.000 spies should be enough, for 20-30,000 insurgents. Secondly get serious about training an Iraqi Army that can hold the population centres against Sunni Islamists. About 120.000 men should be enough to hold all cities and towns in Iraq. You can recruit them from the Shia and Kurd ethnic groups. With a 120.000 men one has got enough troops to hold out against the 20.000 – 30.000 Sunni Islamists. Selecting Shias and Kurds will ensure the loyalty of the troops in fighting Sunni Islamists. This will have been done already.

Select about 20.000 men from the 120.000 to become officers, sergeants and corporals, to lead the other 100.000. The soldiers can be taught to march, salute and shoot. That will not take more than 8 weeks and will have been done anyway, by now. Divide them in 13.500 squad sized groups of 7 or 8 men. Equip them lightly, with AK-47s, RPGs and Light Machine Guns (LMG).

Train the 20.000 to be Corporals, Sergeants and second Lieutenants. Select the men for leadership, high morals, perseverance and intelligence. This takes more time. After say four months let the Lieutenants and the NCOs take over the training of the squad men. Let the first 1.000 Iraqi squads go on patrol with American and British troops so they can learn on the job.

If things go well after two months pull out all Western troops out of all cities and towns apart from Baghdad, into deserts bases near the towns, cities AND the highways to the South where the ports are.

The Sunni Islamists are strong in the cities where they can attack the Americans from up close. The American Tanks, Armoured Vehicles, Helicopters, Communication Equipment and Artillery do not give the Americans any advantage in the cities. But in the desert with the free fire zones all around the conventional strength of the American is actually a great asset. Secondly it also means that the Americans are always menacingly nearby and can suddenly pounce on the Sunni insurgents, while the Islamists cannot hurt the Americans. Thirdly it means that the Americans are not hurting the civilian population. Right now a lot of civilians are hurt by American firepower when the Americans are responding to guerrilla pin pricks with their overwhelming but blind firepower. This translates in lots of recruits for the Islamists and has to be stopped. Finally with the Americans out in the deserts they are well poised to keep the Iranian Army from getting any funny ideas about meddling in Iraq.

Create an Iraqi Army Engineering Corps of about 20.000 men. Have them construct new roads, bridges and bypasses in those areas where the roads from the Southern ports are running through or nearby Sunni neighbourhoods and where there is a constant threat of ambush and mines against logistics convoys to the pro American forces in the rest of the country. Supplement the strength of the Iraqi Engineering Corps by letting local construction contractors in on lucrative contracts, to create jobs and a powerful pro American lobby.

Now recruit a second batch of 120.000 Kurds and Shia’s. Hey, throw in some Sunni’s too just to show YOU ARE NOT PREJUDICED.

With the Americans out in the desert and the Iraqi Army in squads in the cities and towns the Islamist cells will start attacking the Iraqi Army squads. In order to get an edge over the Army Squads they will band together in groups of 20-30 men and appoint sergeants and lieutenants to command these groups. To house them, feed them and equip them they will appoint kitchens, safe houses and armouries in neighbourhoods and streets friendly to them. This will be mostly in Sunni neighbourhoods. There will be a maximum of 1,200 of these groups. Make sure you have your spies in there by now, especially in the garages, markets, mosques and coffee houses.

If the Iraqi Army is not strong enough to police the Sunni Neighbourhoods, allow them to pull back into their own ethnic neighbourhoods, which they may defend.
Also make sure to set up funds administered by Kurdish tribal leaders and Shia clergy to pay out considerable amounts of money to the families of killed Iraqi Army personnel. Have community leaders collect money from their ethnic/religious base and add a dollar for every dollar contributed to the funds. Pay out sums of at least 10.000 -20.000 US dollars to the families of martyrs. Also have ethnic leaders and clergy establish funds for hospitals and such. Make available excellent medical and other care for Army wounded. Send American doctors to Iraq and attract the best Iraqi Medical staff to these show piece medical facilities.

Now you take the Iraqi army second Lieutenants that show exceptional ability and promote them to Lieutenant. Form 3 squads into platoons of about 20 men. If losses are heavy pull back out of the Sunni neighbourhoods and concentrate mostly on the Kurdish and Shia ethnic areas. If losses are light keep harassing all known groups of Islamist Insurgents.

Having to oppose the Iraqi Army organised in squads and based on the Shia and Kurd areas and the US Army out there in the desert and on the border the Islamists have to select the most attractive target. Targeting the US Army in the desert will only bring occasional successes and regular losses. So the Islamist forces will concentrate on the Sunni areas and attack the Shia and Kurdish units especially the ones who venture onto Sunni turf. In order to take on the new platoons the Islamists will have to band together in bigger organisations for neighbourhood defence and for attacks on Army strongholds. So they will organise in company sized units and appoint captains to officer them. Also they will be looking for Iraqi and other Sunni Muslims with officer training to command such groups. The company sized Islamist forces will more and more look like regular army organisations. They will need training grounds, arms and munitions depots and hospitals, garages for vehicles, workshops for weapons, communication equipment and tools. There will be a maximum of about 170 of these groups. It will be easy to list them and to follow them. Unfortunately smaller groups will branch off them, which complicates things.

Basically what is happening is that you are dictating the shape that the enemy will take in order for him to be victorious. Because the enemy is not under strong central command there will be no way for him to oppose the shape that his forces are taking. By now there will also be conflicts of interests between company sized Islamist groups which can be used to gain information on the Islamist forces.

Select a company (150-200) sized unit in a particular Sunni neighbourhood in a particular town that is also partly Kurdish or Sunni, with a Iraqi army unit plus a intelligence gathering cell. Invite reporters from American and Iraqi television broadcasters. Make sure everything is known about the Islamist forces. All the names of the warriors. The location of the their houses and infrastructure. The names of their brothers and cousins, their wives and girlfriends. Know their habits. Where they eat and sleep and an exact weapons count. Surround the town using Americans in vehicles and establish roadblocks. Control all roads, paths and fields. Then attack them using both Iraqi Army units with American Special Forces Officers and units of US Army personnel. Do not use vehicles or helicopters but attack through the streets or alleys, the sewers or the roofs, just use any angle to quickly take care of the whole group. Avoiding to use vehicles will enable surprise.

Televise the victory on Iraqi and American national TV. Then do nothing for a while. Keep sending squad and platoon sized Iraqi Army units against the Islamists. Never mind if they are defeated again and again by the Islamists. Presenting a string of small successes to the Sunni Islamists is essential to the success of the strategy.

Now again take the promising Iraqi Army Lieutenants and send them to further officer training. Train about a 150 of these promising Lieutenants to become Captains and form 5 platoons into companies of about a 120 troops. Some of these companies can not be housed in Shia or Kurdish neighbourhoods but will be housed in former Iraqi Army barracks or US Army bases. Also other staff will have to be trained such as logistics, technical and maintenance specialists. For non-combat roles soldiers can be taken that were wounded and are not fit to return to combat duty.

Have the newly formed companies attack or threaten to attack Sunni Islamist’ strongholds. Equip them with some heavy arms, such as combat engineering equipment (Tank dozers, Armoured heavy howitzers, heavy engineers transporters, D-9 Armoured bulldozers). Some of the strongholds will band together and form battalion sized units (600 – 800 men). They will build up arms and munitions stockpiles and all kinds of military infrastructure and bases. Supposing that about 15 of these units will come into existence, comprising about 10,000 personnel it is now time to move in the US Army and have them crush these battalion sized units using heavy fire power and equipment. TV crews must be ready to show large amounts of weapons and men taken, killed or destroyed. This will be the time to declare a full victory and quickly pull out most of the American troops. It will be wise to retain a considerable training unit to train the Iraqi Army up to division levels and also to keep an US Army brigade (3.000) in the desert near Baghdad. The war will continue for a long time between the Iraqi Army and the Sunni Islamists. The main thing however is having declared a victory and gotten the bulk of the troops out without losing face.

The Western media will lose most of its interest. The regime in Iraq will be reasonably secure because it is based on the biggest ethnic and religious blocks in the country and they will have access to the world market for arms. Obviously the Sunni ethnic group will whither and eventually many of them will emigrate to Sunni Muslim countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia. The latter is contrary to American interests but there will be little that can be done to prevent it. Also the political, cultural and military influence of Iran will increase and although something can be done by keeping strong ties to the Shia leadership and supporting the Iraqi media, this is basically something that American policy have to take in their stride and is food for thought in case of planning of further military adventures in the future.

Important goals for the USA, such as a reasonable stable and peaceful society in Iraq, run by people who are friendly towards the USA and also a little dependent on them (because of American arms and training) will be met by this policy. Also it is a way to get the USA out without losing too much face. It will be problematic that the Kurds and the Shias will form power blocks and perhaps even clash with each other. This may cause involvement of Turkey (Kurds) and Iran (Shias).