Leaving Iraq: A Taste of Things to Come
posted at 10:00 am on February 23, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
One argument against withdrawing our troops from Iraq prematurely is that doing so would look like a defeat for us and a victory for our enemies, and that would embolden our enemies to ramp up their activities and rhetoric against us.
On the other hand, Democrat point-man John Murtha says that the second we leave Iraq, the Iraqis will route Al Qaeda (because we’re just holding them back, I guess) and then the whole region, now scourged of terrorism, will right itself. We’re the “arrogant” problem, from that point of view, and once we leave peace will flow in like a river. Just, you know, not the polluted Tigris. Some other river with clean water that’s safe for deer to sip.
So who’s right and who’s talking crazy talk? Well, check out this headline and note the source. And…well…
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- A large number of angry students from the different universities of Tehran congregated in front of the British embassy in order to show their protest against the sacrilege of the Islamic and Shiites’ sanctities.
Those “sacrileges” were terrorist attacks committed by fellow Muslims in order to start off sectarian warfare and destabilize Iraq. But never mind that.
The wrathful students congregated in front of the British embassy building to once again show their protest against the destruction of the shrines of the Shiites holy Imams by the US and Coalition troops in Samara, Iraq last year and also condemned destruction of the al-Aqsa Mosque by the Zionist regime of Israel.
The al-Aqsa Mosque line is an instance of taqiyya: The Israelis are digging well outside the al-Aqsa compound in Jerusalem with the aim of eventually rebuilding a ramp to the mosque that collapsed a few years ago. The imams and mullahs are spinning the activity as an assault on al-Aqsa, which is the third holiest site in Islam. It also sits on the Temple Mount and is thought to be the site of a couple of major Biblical events. Agitation about anything having anything to do with al-Aqsa is one of the few things that can unite the entire Islamic world. So that’s why the imams and mullahs are lying about it. Just like they’re lying about the Samara bombing.
The students chanted different slogans, including ‘Down with the US’, ‘Down with Zionism’, ‘Down with England’ etc, and called on the Muslim world to show more vigilance and solidarity and refrain from sectarian war.
“Down with the various Satans, blah blah.” But check this out.
Protestors then moved towards the French embassy and from there to the embassy of the Vatican in Tehran.
The French? The Vatican? But, but…they oppose the war in Iraq. What’s up with protesting against them? They’re not Islamic (in the case of the French, yet). And that’s enough to hate them.
If we leave Iraq before it’s stable, little protests like this one are just portents of what’s to come. Al-Aqsa will become the next great grievance, and it could well unite the whole Arab world and stretch out to every Muslim on earth. Bombs are already flowing into Gaza and the West Bank. The Syrians seem to be playing games designed to divide the US and Israel. And the Iranians are continuing on their drive for nuclear weapons.
Our leaving Iraq won’t end the war. The whole thing is in fact likely to pick up speed.
Update: Maybe we should just learn to take Iran at its word.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If we start discussing how to get Israel and the West out of Jerusalem now, we’ll avoid getting ourselves into another mess like Iraq.
After all, the only way to win this war is to stay one step ahead of the terrorists.
a4g on February 23, 2007 at 10:16 AM
If only “Allah” is sacred, and the Muslims are such hoity-toity, self-proclaimed “iconoclasts”, how is it that they get upset when a building (composed of compacted dirt, and other mundane matter) is destroyed? (VIZ- the Sunni al Qaeda bombed Golden Domed Shi’ite Mosque in Iraq that “set off” the sectarian warfare.)
Isn’t that transposing the honor due only to “Allah” to mere man-made “stuff”? Which would be making profane human items into “sacred” things? An act that goes against the entire teachings of the Koran and their “prophet” Mohammad, who went so far as to ban representational artwork because such activity usurped “Allah”’s jealous creativity.
Holy hypocrites.
A mosque is mud.
To kill over mud is absurd.
A sure sign of the divine irrationality that is the core trait of “Allah”.
profitsbeard on February 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM
How old are those students? Mid-30’s? How long do they have to stay in school to be edjucated? Maybe that’s why they’re angry…
Mazztek on February 23, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I think there is a sense in which Murtha is right. If we leave, Al Qaeda will be routed.
That’s because the Shi’ite militias will ethnically cleanse every Sunni neighborhood and town, and thereby eliminate all possible bases of support for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda in Iraq won’t be a problem because of the genocide our departure will bring about.
Of course, Okinawa Jack won’t put it in those terms. But that’s what he means.
In other words: “Hey, what’s a little genocide if it means the Democrats keep the House, right?”
The Colossus on February 23, 2007 at 10:55 AM
True, until the Saudis move in to protect the Sunnis, thus aligning themselves with al Qaeda’s fight against the Shia. And then the Iranians move in more openly to counter that.
Bad stuff.
Bryan on February 23, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Well our leaving Vietnam and then ‘defunding’ aid to our ally there eventually ended the war. Of course 2 million Cambodians and a million or so Vietnamese were sacrificed on the altar of socialism…. but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few million eggs right?
At least that is the thinking of Murtha and the DNC Leadership.
CrazyFool on February 23, 2007 at 11:10 AM
The Middle East is a tinder box ready to explode. The only reason it hasn’t yet, is because the United States Military has a massive presence in the region. Pulling out now would go down in history as perhaps the dumbest foreign policy debacle.
Even greater that an “illegal war” in Iraq, perpetrated on the innocent people of the world, by an oil hungry and revenge seeking BUSH Administration, in furtherance of their diabolical plan to suck all the oil out of the region and burn it all in a giant pit so that no one can use it!! (o.k. that last part was an embellishment by me. I don’t really have proof that the BUSH Administration has dug a pit somewhere to burn all the oil from the middle east. but hey, who needs proof? Right?)
Troy Rasmussen on February 23, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Consequences? We don’t need to worry about no stinkin’ consequences. Once Iran overruns everybody and controls all the oil we can finally become a green nation living off the land and riding around in horse and buggies. Sounds like liberal utopia to me.
pistolero on February 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Bryan –
You’re quite right.
Genocide would be the smaller, less frightening scenario. A general Sunni and Shia religious war would more likely erupt.
Who wins? The Saudis have a lot of cash, but you can’t buy an army overnight. Without Iraq as a shield, I think the Gulf states go down; unless Pakistan’s nukes can be brought into play. So the balance will ultimately be achieved by the Saudis buying nukes and nuke technology from Pakistan.
The question is, are all these nice, rational actors then going to engage in a Cold War, MAD, etc., or do they just go nuts and hope the 12th Imam steps in to sort things out?
Gee, that’s a foreign policy question I’d really like to hand President Silky Pony, to see what he comes up with.
Wonder what I’ll be paying for gas at the pump?
The Colossus on February 23, 2007 at 12:04 PM
They will, and quicker than you can say “allah akbar!”.
csdeven on February 23, 2007 at 12:11 PM
al-Aqsa is important to Jews (and Christians, to some degree), as well as Muslims. The Israelis aren’t going to destroy it… that’s just silly. Any excuse for outrage, I suppose.
On a sidenote, I’ve actually been inside al-Aqsa… it’s an impressive building. Got to go into the Well of Souls too. Then I killed a bunch of Nazis.
Okay, that Nazi part might have been Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Mark Jaquith on February 23, 2007 at 12:53 PM
The wider implication of a hasty US departure from Iraq is what the “get out now” crowd fails - or refuses - to recognize and grapple with. Their goal is simply to rid our nation of the “problem of Iraq” and they pretend that proximity to the conflict in that country is the only important factor.
Bryan, as you illustrate, this problem will assuredly follow us. This should be obvious to anyone who thinks even momentarily about the nature of war against Jihadis. That is why Rep. Murtha’s pronouncements can only be viewed as doddering ignorance or deliberate obfuscation.
What’s even worse is when a seemingly common sense Representative like Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC)apparently buys into Murtha’s non-thinking - repeating some of the left’s pet talking points and even voting in favor of the recent anti-surge resolution. This is mis-guided at it’s worst.
The Ritz on February 23, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Where have I head all this before?
Oh, that’s right:
Students, Tehran, Embassy; I knew this was familiar! They haven’t overrun a US embassy yet, but give them time.
And Murtha thinks that there will be peace in the middle east after we leave, why? That man is clueless, as are all other people who blame America for the mess in the Middle East.
That is the truth most people refuse to admit. WE are the ones preventing a war in the Middle East, we’re not the cause.
RedinBlueCounty on February 23, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Opps, I forgot the link to the above quote:
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html
Sorry
RedinBlueCounty on February 23, 2007 at 1:16 PM
We tried the clinton doctine in the 1990s where we treated terrorism as just one more criminal act.
The result was 9/11.
Now the idea that we can go back to pre 9/11 and pre invasion of Iraq and everything will return to normal is as far fetch a fantasy as Martians invading the earth in the 1930s.
Terrorism thrives on being ignore and proliferates. The truth is we either fight terrorism with our military or we fight in with our police and emergency people and our civilians.
AL Queda made in clear that all americans are their enemy and they will not distinguish between military and civilian targets.
They believe they are winning. That is only going to make them believe that they can again attack the US and get away with it.
Because if we leave Iraq that means they got away with 9/11. And got the world to unite behind a dictator over a democracy.
William Amos on February 23, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Absoluely.
Don’t tell the Democrats though. To them, launching a few cruise missiles and hoping a terror leader like OBL just happens to be sitting in that targeted mud ****house is the ideal way to fight terror.
Common sense stuff which explains why so many *coughliberalscough* have such a hard time grasping those facts.
Yakko77 on February 23, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Wrong. Good stuff. We want the Ummah to fight itself.
PRCalDude on February 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM
I haven’t seen any of our libs yet but I feel I can safely speak for then in this case… “How dare you blame Clinton for 9-11 … This could have all been avoided if bushes father had finished off Saddam in 91” … and then one of us would reply “hey it was you libs yelling that stopped us after we drove Iraq out, remember the highway of death?” and of course not wanting us to have the last word the lefty will reply “This war is only about oil” then we will call him/her “troll”
/tread highjack complete.
Gwillie on February 23, 2007 at 2:31 PM
All this talk of ethnic cleansing. My god. Since when did conservatives give one lick about ethnic cleansing. Since when did conservatives give one lick about anyone but themselves (and their anti-American agenda). The only thing conservatives have ever cared about is keeping more of their taxes (so they can buy another car, or whatever), not letting gay people get married (you know, because the divorce, spousal abuse, and infidelity rates among heterosexual couples have EVERYTHING to do with homos), and maintaining the death penalty (the true pro-life position). I don’t think you guys really care about genocide. It’s okay. You can admit it. You want us to stay in Iraq so you can stick it to the liberals. Say it out loud. You’ll feel betters. “I won’t let the liberals win. I won’t let the liberals win. I can’t let them know that they were, are, and always will be right.” I know I feel better.
shackler on February 23, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Sometimes, you just can’t get enough protesting, especially if their are foriegn press about……
I think the underlying anger is really the “female only island” that is sparking all of this……. oh, the humanity!
PinkyBigglesworth on February 23, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Shackler, you’re a fool.
Bryan on February 23, 2007 at 3:00 PM
As long as lefties keep talking it going to be ok right?
Gwillie on February 23, 2007 at 3:03 PM
The Israeli’s should give the Mullahs an ultimatum. “Either tell the truth - right now - or we will start digging under the Al Satan mosque.”
If the whole Arab world thinks they are digging there anyway, then Israel has nothing to lose by actually doing it.
With any luck the place will fall down and temple mount can be put to a useful purpose.
I suggest a massive whiskey distillery.
uptight on February 23, 2007 at 3:10 PM
LoL
It’s like there’s a newsletter or something with nothing but wacky anti-right talking points, and somehow the entire left side of the internet is signed up haha.
Lehosh on February 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM
shackler - say what you will about Conservatives, but whatever their sins, at least they are honest. Liberals love to lecture the world about morality, but jump into bed with any anti-American they can find - no matter what sort of fascist they are.
Chavez? Yeah, he’s an antisemitic, commie thug - but he hates Bush, so he’s an ally.
Ahmadinejad? Okay, he hangs gays and stones women, but he hates Bush and israel, so let him have nukes.
So conservatives don’t live up to your template of political correctness, but they are closer to the ideals expressed by “liberals” than liberals ever were or will be.
Who abolished slavery, again?
uptight on February 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Personally, and selfishly, I care about ethnic cleansing in the Middle East since it will affect my gas prices.
We know the left doesn’t care about ethnic cleansing, because they didn’t demand we go into Cambodia to clean up the mess caused by the left forcing our withdrawal from Vietnam.
I guess it’s better to blame the whole enslavement/mass murdering in Southeast Asia on historical forces than to admit complicity in that, huh, Shackler.
The Colossus on February 23, 2007 at 3:20 PM
The only Ethnic Cleansing seen in the Middle East in recent years, was when the Jews were pulled out of Gaza.
uptight on February 23, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Good one -uptight-. “Honest”? I like it. Doing underage male pages, taking bribes for votes (I feel a Jefferson retort coming on), lying about leaking Valerie Plame’s name (illegal or not). Oh, and sex with gay prostitues in exchange for drugs. Honest. I will start using that one. Honest. hehehe.
Oh, and Iran having nukes. What proof do you have? The same proof we had for Iraq? Hmmm. When was the last time Iran was at war? Oh, right. Iran/Iraq. Oh, right. We asked Saddam to invade. And who cares about Chavez? What’s he gonna do? Close Citgo? I think you guys just like war. Maybe it’s that you hate soldiers and want to see them die. Who knows?
And Colossus, enough about Cambodia. Y’all had like 15 years to finish that war. Couldn’t do it. Why? Because it wasn’t a worthy cause that the Americans could support (I feel a “liberal hamstringing” retort coming on). Same with Iraq. Weren’t we the ones to go after Slobdan? Maybe it wasn’t us. Who knows? I don’t remember which version of the history books I read. I did go to school in Wyoming, so maybe I did read that it was Bush(1) that ended the genocide over there.
shackler on February 23, 2007 at 3:35 PM
shackler said
Implying that all conservatives “do underage males pages” is like implying that all Liberals do impressionable interns in the Oval office and lie to the country about it.
Sure - not all conservatives are models of human behaviour. I was talking about the ethos, not individuals.
You’ve answered your own point
Who do you think leaked Plame’s name?
Even if your are right (which you aren’t), the leaking of the identity of one CIA desk jockey pales in comparison to the regular, damaging leaking of national secrets by Liberals to the Liberal press.
That’s right - the world’s second most oil rich nation needs all those Uranium enrichment facilities to power the lights. Sheesh - even the libtard UN thinks this is a danger (although being libtards, they won’t do anything and it will be down to the Israelis again)
And whose fault was that? Saddam seemed to convince everyone around the world and every high profile Liberal in American politics.
So he either hid them in Syria or just bragged a little too much. Upshot: the scumbag is six feet under.
uptight on February 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Show me what threat Serbia was to the US and what WMDs they had Shackler ?
Else democrats are far more guilty of war crimes than Bush is for attacking Serbia in the 1990s.
William Amos on February 23, 2007 at 3:56 PM
It happened again! I thought the first volley was just a hit and run, but I was lucky enough to get a second dose of “Vapid Leftist Character Assassinations” with Chapter 2: Vaguely-Related Guilt-By-Association.
I was hoping for something new and exciting since I’ve already read this book a few times, but a refresher in the fundamentals is always a delight in the meantime.
Lehosh on February 23, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Oh come on - he’s the daaaaarling of the left. He must be. He hates Bush. That’s enough for you.
Don’t like like war. Don’t like surgery, fences or pesticides. Sometimes such things are needed to prevent worse things happening.
You the same soldiers, whose intelligence you routinely execrate? The ones you deride as braindead hicks with no future?
uptight on February 23, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Uh, Amos. Iraq didn’t have WMD. So, let’s look at it side by side. Serbia-Genocide. Iraq-Genocide. Serbia-We were told it was genocide. Iraq-We were told it was Al Qaeda. Serbia-We blew the hell out of them then got out. Iraq-We pussy footed in, insisted that it was STILL Al Qaeda, then used it to get numb nuts Bushie re-elected. Same ball of wax? Only for the Right.
And uptight, would you have a lung removed to cure a sore foot? COME ON PEOPLE!!!
And Lehosh, nothing new. Sorry. Same stuff. Don’t attack countries unprovoked. Know when to get out of wars. Quit alienating the U.S. Quit dragging our name through the mud. Don’t elect someone who pronounces it Nucular. QUIT DOING LITTLE BOYS!!!
shackler on February 23, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Oh, and the CLinton/Monica reference. Good one. Blow job vs. unprovoked war. I can see the comparison. Ok, I concede. Clinton was worse because he lied about a blow job.
shackler on February 23, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Can’t somebody ban this troll?
PRCalDude on February 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM
I will tell all those families of Kurds and Iranians that died from Chemical weapons attacks that it was all in their minds.
William Amos on February 23, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Actually, you’re wrong! I’m pleasantly surprised actually that you deviated from the traditional “ACTION ALERT” script with the following line:
Very well played departure from the traditional Chimpy Bushitlerburton monologue. This here is actually a serious, historical accounting of what works and what does not work… a move that I have rarely seen someone on the left make. If it weren’t for the ad hominem/guilt-by-association screed earlier I don’t think I’d consider you a troll =D.
Lehosh on February 23, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Shackler wishes he could have supported Pol Pot, like the rest of the left did. He feels left out.
In the 20th Century, the left murdered some 150,000,000 people. It’s what they do, don’tchaknow?
georgej on February 23, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Check again - no one got out, even though your ‘leader’ said we would. You’re simply in a different reality.
Entelechy on February 23, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I’d watch who you call “numb nuts,” shackler.
Iraq didn’t have WMDs…when we got there, but we know they did have them.
Were they destroyed? Wheeled into Syria and/or Iran? Even the UN inspectors looked for them–why would they, if Saddam weren’t known to have them?
As for “Serbia”/Bosnia/Kosovo, that “genocide” has never been proven (at least not to my satisfaction) and we most certainly did not “get out;” our troops are still there, even though President Clenis said they’d be “home by Christmas.”
If you wanna call one of our Commanders-in-Chief a “numbnuts” then why not Billy Jeff Blythe Clintoon, who had 6-12 opportunities to either capture or kill Osama before he could carry out the attacks of 9/11.
And why in the world would a supposed “pointless” war and a “pussy-footed” invasion succeed in getting anyone re-elected?
Nice high opinion you have of your fellow Americans and our military, shacky!
Jen the Neocon on February 23, 2007 at 5:38 PM
After Nam there were the cambodian boat people, President has instituted a very scary immigration concerning Iraqi’s.
sonnyspats1 on February 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
No he hasn’t sonny. I believe there’s only a few thousand Iraqis that are being offered asylum here.
I know of no Cambodian boat people, but of the many thousands of Vietnamese “boat people” who found sanctuary here after we left Vietnam, they have become marvelous, assimilated and productive American citizens.
Jen the Neocon on February 23, 2007 at 5:59 PM
I didn’t compare his cigar antics to the war, you simply imagined it.
I brought up Clinton because you brought up the sex.
If you live by the pork sword, you die by the pork sword.
uptight on February 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Mark Jaquith> the only interest Christians should have in al aqsa is as a sterling example of how muslims desecrate the holy sites of any area they conquer by building their own monuments over the site, or by simply converting the use of the former “occupants” temple/site to their own twisted philosophy, as they have done in every land they conquer, from india to spain ( hell they stole the kabba, their own most sacred site, from a bunch of arab polytheist) The Jews have every interest in it because it was purposely constructed on the temple mount to prevent solomons temple from ever being rebuilt. its time that we employ equality and reciprocal respect for all cultures. give them the respect they give us and others like Josephs tomb, or Ayodhya in india
colorfulbeachpersona on February 23, 2007 at 6:41 PM
jen> oh there was genocide practiced in serbia, but the massacres were commited by the bosnians
colorfulbeachpersona on February 23, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Ya right, The day Pigs fly.
KCtheKat on February 23, 2007 at 9:39 PM
That depends on which word you’re talking about I guess, and in which language… Do we take “Peaceful Domestic Energy” in English, or do we take “Death to America” in Farsi?
Lehosh on February 23, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Goodness, my bad for missing “shackler”…… what a prime example of our public education system today.
“shackler”, you must be proud since you seem to know all the facts. Too bad none of them are correct, yet, I sense a little hostility in you, still…..
Why would that be? Maybe you have been “taught” that the United States is the worst country on the planet, unless a Democrat is in power………. just a wild guess.
Question for you “shackler”, and let’s see if your honest or not…..
You stated,
Let’s look at the facts, shall we?
… during the Clinton Administration, as you referenced, we entered the Bosnian/Serbia conflict, without Congressional approval, or a UN Security council resolution (both of which were granted to President George W. Bush for the actions in Iraq).
Mr. Clinton also ignored the War Powers Act, which requires that he seek congressional authorization to continue a military conflict more than 60 days. He suggested at one point Imposing a naval blockade on Yugoslavia until his own European allies pointed out to him that It is considered an act of war to detain ships of other nations on the high seas.
That was only his first sin, and by the way, more that 3000 people died, more than in the 9/11 attack, more than our soldiers in the field now.
Question…….. To this one point (and there are so many others) “Who’s sin was greater? Clinton, or President George W. Bush, now that you know the facts?”
“shackler”, you may not be an idiot, just a product our our public school system.
I hope you have the intelligence to open your eyes, and mind, to what is actually going on in this world, and how you are being played like a banjo……..
PinkyBigglesworth on February 24, 2007 at 12:28 AM
It’s obvious your age is somewhere under 40ish. It is ideologies like yours that has increased the divorce rate. In the 50’s the divorce rate was quite low. Once the 60’s hit and the crazy liberals started getting their way in the 70’s, the divorce rate shot up. The conservatives explained this would happen but it was poo-pooed.
Well, your liberal moonbat ideals about gay marriage will have serious consequences that will make this country weaker, not stronger. Liberalism weakens traditional marriage and then you use that fact to support more ideals that will weaken it further. BTW, the people getting divorced, I’d bet dollars to donuts are for the most part trying to apply liberal ideals to a conservative based institution.
This is why you and your liberal ilk are called moonbats.
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 9:26 AM