Republicans and Democrats shouted, hurled insults and in the end gave new and ferocious meaning to partisanship. A debate over withdrawal from Iraq has descended into rancorous accusations that exemplify a nation divided.
As some noted, this is a replay of Vietnam, a war decided in the corridors of Congress rather than the Southeast Asian battlefield. Surely, the lessons of the past are not lost on al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. They cannot defeat us in Iraq, but they can certainly test American fortitude.
Yet the ugly exchanges in the House of Representatives overlook critical dimensions of this war on terror, matters that have potentially catastrophic implications for the nation.
On November 5 the Global Islamic Media Front, a propaganda creation that disseminates al Zarqawi’s positions, announced a prize for the best proposed logo at its new website. The winner of the contest will be “privileged” to launch “three long range rockets against an American military base in Iraq (…the pressing of a button by a blessed hand.”
The announcement went on to note that Jaysh Al-Ta’ifa Al–Mansura, a radical Sunni Islamic organization composed of former military officers who served Saddam Hussein, has developed “a rocket, effective and precise, as we had promised you, using the highest level of technology …capable of launch from long range via remote control from anywhere in the world.” As these radicals note, they have the means – or claim to have the means – “to destroy the fortresses of polytheism and the infidels… .”
Whether this is merely an empty threat designed to appeal to adherents remains to be seen. However, it should be noted that this website has received more than 50,000 “hits.”
This website proposal is not unique. The Sunday Times of London reports that another al Qaeda website contains detailed instructions in Arabic on how to make nuclear, “dirty” and biological bombs. This site has 80 pages of instructions and pictures of kitchen bomb-making techniques.
Under the heading of the Nuclear Bomb of Jihad are instructions on ways to enrich uranium as a gift to the commander of jihad fighters, Osama bin Laden. Readers are encouraged to look for materials such as radium, which it claims is an “effective alternative to uranium and available on the market.”
Quoting the Koran, the anonymous architect of the site notes, “Fight them so that Allah will punish them at your hands and will put them to shame and will give you victory over them.”
John Hassard, a physicist at Imperial College London, maintains that this website offers “a proper instruction manual” for would-be terrorists. “It is a very real threat and one we can’t afford to ignore,” he said.
If this website is to be taken seriously, al Qaeda is striving to move directly from a stage where weapons of mass destruction are obtained to one in which they are deployed. Moreover, these threats serve as a propaganda vehicle and a recruitment device.
While the Congress dithers over whether we should leave Iraq precipitously or remain, our enemy is building or attempting to build weapons of mass destruction. There can be little doubt that if fissionsable material is obtained and converted into a weapon, it will be used.
This threat must be taken seriously. If it requires preemption, then preemption we must have. If it requires enhanced counter intelligence, then we must put that in place. If it means draining the Middle East swamp of fanatical jihadists, then we must be prepared to do so.
The websites that call for attacks against the United States and its allies cannot be dismissed as sheer hyperbole. We are at war and our survival is at stake. Those in the Congress who cannot recognize that do not deserve to represent the American people.
The appeasers in our midst believe that if we keep on feeding the carnivores red meat, they will become vegetarians. But history teaches a very different lesson. Those who refuse to fight are likely to die with their hands in the air. History can be merciless to those who won’t defend themselves. That is a point that must be shouted on the House of Representatives floor.
Well, for the record, you could have at least provided a a link to the Hitchens essay you refer to. Connie. ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record, I liked Hitchens before he became a retroactive neo-con. I especially admired him for taking on the the most sacred of modern sacred cows, Mother Teresa, although it was quite bitter medicine. The intellectual courage was astounding. Everybody dug Mother Teresa.
I do think Hitchens misses things, but he has the soul of a philosopher, and the philosopher's job is to think the unthinkable. Contrary to popular belief, that's encouraged around here. (It's just that some folks operate under the impression that what they consider bold thoughts haven't already been thunk many times over before.)
I liked your comment a lot, CD, because it is serious. There is no virtue in suffering fools gladly, and Hitchens' essay is a plea to consider things seriously:
How appalling it would be, at just the moment when "the Arab street" (another dispelled figment that its amen corner should disown) has begun to turn against al-Qaida and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, if those voters should detect an American impulse to fold or "withdraw."
The meme that our Iraq adventure is creating more terrorists is so 2004. These guys (to our luck) seem bent on proving themselves to any non-fool in the world as true enemies of humanity. Even to the Muslim world that was watching and waiting, the worldwide jihad that 9/11 was supposed to proclaim is showing itself to be just another bid for tyranny.
I think we're gonna be OK. Fortunately, evil is stupid.
Hitchens has his moments. I think he thinks philosophically, but he really is a hardliner type when it comes to war issues.
ReplyDeleteIf I read him correctly, the point of Dr. London's original essay is that the current war issues are not political or partisan, but philosophical, and therefore serious.
"Hardline" implies implacable emotion over considered conviction, and does an injustice to both London and Hitchens.
The discussion of withdrawal from Iraq is not and has never been about the larger War on Terror. It is a question of competence, of which the Bush Administration has sadly showed none, preferring instead political hay over guaranteed results.
ReplyDeleteHere is a fascinating account of what might occur if we were to withdraw, or even have a timetable for said withdrawal. The "terrorists" in Iraq make up no more than 10% of the insurgent fighters - roughly 5,000 men. A visible demonstration of America's willingness to let Iraq determine its own destiny would serve to alienate the jihadists and bolster the legitimacy of what is now seen as a quisling Iraqi government. Essentially, by preparing to withdraw American troops, the bottom falls out of the insurgency, isolating and delegitimizing the jihadists.
Of course, as we see here, there's little likelihood in doing so until the Bush Administration actually gets serious about creating an Iraqi Army that does not rely upon Kurdish peshmerga and Shia militias like the Badr Brigade. After all, the Kurds are out of there. They view the democratic process in Iraq as step one towards secession.
Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror. The funds spent in the War in Iraq could have easily been devoted to a serious effort to securing American seaports and other facilities. I remember an exercise we ran in my undergrad years (I majored in International Peace and Security), overseen by a Navy captain from the National Security Council. I was on the team playing the "terrorists." We determined that the easiest thing to do would be to pack a shipping freighter with fertilizer, oil, and a gram or so of uranium. Detonating said ship in a harbor aerosolizes the particles of uranium, creating an unlivable area larger than New York City for generations to come. A bunch of college undergrads figured out how to do this. It's a fair bet that some more serious people on both sides have the matter have too.
We live in a country where people get fired for failing to mathematically model, predict, or account for the natural half-life decay of fractions of micrograms of fissile material. Russian authorities are unable to account for nearly 40 tons of Soviet-era radioactive material. And all this while the Bush Administration has rested on its laurels when it comes to securing the world's supply of radioactive material. While the Bush Administration wastes our time in Iraq, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf refuses to allow anyone access to the pardoned A.Q. Khan, head of the infamous "nuclear black market." Instead of dealing with countries like Pakistan, who actively supplied nuclear assistance to Iran, or with North Korea, the Republican government dithers and wastes resources on Iraq, a country that did not pose a threat then or ever.
The questions being asked and addressed by Democrats in Congress, Dr. London, aren't about "emboldening" or "giving in" to terrorists. They're about competence and direction. They're about a failed strategy that is going nowhere put into action by an administration incapable of admitting mistakes, drawing valuable resources away from real problems that do, as you pointed out, threaten our nation.
Negotiation and compromise with fanatics whose sole aim is the destruction of Western civilization?? No thanks, your way has already been tried. One 9/11 is enough!
ReplyDeleteThis is flat nonsense. The goal of the fanatics - a small minority in Iraq - is the restoration of the Caliphate. You should at least know your enemy before giving him the gift of your hate.
Perhaps I'm wrong, Connie, but "hardline" is used as a pejorative. I have never known it to be complimentary.
ReplyDeleteIs Viggo Mortensen a "hardline" pacifist? If you're comfortable with that, then I withdraw my objection.
As for philosophy, Islamism's goals are not practical; they are existential. This is no little border dispute where both sides can give a little.
...my studies of history have convinced me that the world is in the midst of yet another phase of the real World War 1, i.e. the war that Islam has been fighting against everyone else for 1500 years.
ReplyDeleteSo, what, the Moors conquest of Spain was just the opening salvo and George W. Bush is the reincarnation of Charlemagne? I'd love to see you back this one up, my ridicule not withstanding. By all means, explain to me how Islam's former history of aggressive proselytizing - a torch now carried by a radical, fundamentalist minority - is so much worse than Christianity's history of conquest, crusade, and persecution. Or fascism's. Or Nationalist Socialism's. Or Stalinist Communism's. Islam is hardly alone in having a history one should be ashamed of. After all, the U.S. is 1300 years younger, and we have plenty.
Sticking your heads in the sand, making excuses for the enemy and blaming the U.S. (which in particular disgusts me) solves nothing.
Tbmbuzz, this is highly reactionary and not worthy of some of the more considered opinions you have rendered elsewhere. Seeking to understand your enemy is light years beyond "making excuses" or "blaming the U.S." Just because someone engages in a reprehensible act in part because of something your country did does not absolve your country of responsibility for its previous action. Neither does accepting that responsibility excuse the act of your aggressor. This is such a basic thing that it beggars all reason that there are reactionary conservatives who cannot grasp it. Seeking to understand the motivations of radical fundamentalist Islam as well as the methods and tactics it employs is the furthest thing from traitorous possible. It is, rather, crucial to developing a comprehensive strategy to combat the threat it poses. Don't devolve into "love it or leave it" reactionary jingoism.
No, but don't you see, Tlaloc? That would be giving in, cutting and running, surrender, emboldening the enemy! It would be an offense to God, to decency, to our need to make our genitals feel big by stomping on other people who offend us! Admitting we were wrong or our tactics were in error is to call into question the very tangibility of our existence!
ReplyDeleteQuestion not authority! Stay the course! And never, ever admit that we can do things smarter or better! You Godless pinko Commie pedophile.
Sure, though it seems it is the minority Sunnis who want the timeline. All the news articles I have read said that Shiite and Kurdish negotiators opposed that resolution. As far as I know, their government has not formally asked us for a timetable.
ReplyDeleteFunny, all the news articles I have read say it was a joint resolution.
Can't say I'm much up on Irish history---::snip::
All indications are that the "terrorists" in Iraq are a small minority. A great deal of the violence in Iraq is predicated directly because of our presence their. The mere act of keeping our military in-country and spread out the way they are undermines the legitimacy of the fledgling Iraqi government and creates the impression that they are merely quislings - puppets and collaborators.
To address the rest of your post on the motivations of war: The war was not predicated on Saddam's intentions or the possibility of being a future threat, but rather the imminent and deadly serious threat he posed at that moment. We now know this to have been entirely inaccurate. We in fact knew it then. Anyone who remotely studies this knows that. The Iraq Survey Group found that, while Saddam had the intention of someday reconstituting his program, the embargo and the inspections had so crippled his ability to do so that he was at least ten years away from doing so. You can't revise history to fit your dogma.
Let us not forget that those chemical weapons he had previously used were gifts from a loving Ronald Reagan, delivered with a big bow on top by Donald Rumsfeld, for his war with our "hated enemy" Iran.
BTW, Tlaloc, Iraq is not in danger of becoming a puppet state of Iran. While some prominent Shiite religious leaders found solace in Iran from Baathist persecution, popular feeling in Iraq still holds great animosity for Iran (thanks to the aforementioned war).