Mort Kondracke’s Plan B for Iraq: Ethnic cleansing by Shiites

posted at 12:34 pm on May 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

More specifically, U.S. complicity in Shiite ethnic cleansing. Redeploy to Kurdistan if need be, he says, and let the Shiites do what they have to do to put down the insurgency. And if that means ethnic cleansing, hey — an 80% solution is better than none.

At least as interesting as the op-ed is Think Progress’s post about it, from which harsh denunciations of Kondracke, a Fox News regular, are curiously absent. I wonder why. Maybe this passage will shed some light; it’s the crux of Kondracke’s piece, and yet, coincidentally, the only quotable bit TP doesn’t quote:

Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing – but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America’s credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr – currently residing in Iran and resting his militias – would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Realpolitik served ice cold. We all understand the dilemma here: we’re the only thing preventing a pogrom, but it’s at a huge human cost to our own military. At what point does our responsibility to get our boys out of harm’s way morally justify leaving a power vacuum within which Iraqi Arabs can slam away at each other? We’re not going to solve a Sunni/Shiite rift that’s existed for 1400 years so why waste any more American lives trying to postpone it? The answer, or my answer, in two words: Pam Hess. It’d be unconscionable for the United States to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing in a country whose security we’ve taken responsibility for; if you believe some on the left (and right), it’s unconscionable for us to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing even in countries whose security we’re not responsible for, like Sudan. When we leave, we have to leave with a good faith belief that the two sides can co-exist, which is why political reconciliation within parliament is so important and why we’re stuck there until it happens. If you take Kondracke seriously, the best solution might actually be to have the Air Force carpet-bomb Anbar: it’d solve the problem instantly, we’d get “credit for helping the Shiites win,” and it’d send a none-too-subtle message to Sadr that he’d best not antagonize us in the future. It would also send the Sunni countries in the Middle East into a frenzy, of course, and would mean the destruction of a part of Iraq where the leadership is, increasingly, unabashedly on our side and has taken the lead in fighting Al Qaeda — but of course, Shiite ethnic cleansing would accomplish the same things.

Strangest of all, in what sense does Kondracke think “American credibility” would be served by letting Sadr put the Sunnis to the sword? We’d be hearing about it from the left and the Islamists for the next thousand years. Al Qaeda would make it a centerpiece of their recruiting strategy. Even Iran, the ostensible beneficiaries, would demagogue the hell out of it with crocodile tears about their “Sunni brothers” whom the Sadrists had no choice but to fight after the U.S. goaded them into it.

The irony is that it probably wouldn’t happen anyway. The Saudis aren’t going to sit by while Shiite fanatics run wild in a Sunni area; they’ve already promised as much through one of their mouthpieces. So what Kondracke’s really calling for, even if he doesn’t realize it, is a Saudi-Iranian proxy war (or actual war) with Iraqis in the middle.

Exit question: Kondracke says he knows one member of Congress secretly supports his plan. Who?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

So what Kondracke’s really calling for, even if he doesn’t realize it, is a Saudi-Iranian proxy war

Hmmm ….

Blacksheep on May 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM

The Devil’s Advocate in me says, “Sure, if they’re too busy killing each other maybe they’ll be too busy to bother us.” but the realist in me thinks that fanatical Muslims have a fairly long memory when it comes to holding a grudge and they’ll certainly remember who it was that made such a war between Saudi Arbai and Iran (with Iraq in the middle) possible and come knocking on our door in a very deadly way.

Yakko77 on May 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM

So what Kondracke’s really calling for, even if he doesn’t realize it, is a Saudi-Iranian proxy war

Emphasis on “with Iraqis in the middle.”

Allahpundit on May 11, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Isn’t Plan B the morning after pill? Seems sorta fitting…

The solution to chaos is more chaos. Bomb/destabilize Syria and Iran so that they’re too busy fighting with their own residents to interfere in their neighbors’ affairs.

If the interference is not stopped, we will be seeing it again in Afghanistan. Leaving Iraq would provide a roadmap to victory for the enemy to replicate in Afghanistan and the means to increase recruiting, since everyone wants to play for a winning team.

rw on May 11, 2007 at 12:53 PM

No wonder the AP says that the approval rating for Congress is the same as President Bush.

I don’t want to hear about Sudan anymore.

amerpundit on May 11, 2007 at 12:54 PM

What about the kid who told my sons unit about the sniper around the corner? What about the woman with the finger of one hand over her lips and one finger of her other hand pointing to the roof? What about the translator that ate the same sand and dodged the same bullets as Bandit troop?

So what if the 3%, 5%, 20% who look to us for hope get left on the killing field? So what? So what indeed. If the 97%, or 95%, or 80% want us dead we should just go ahead and let them kill the 3-5-20% who don’t. Why? Because we are tired? Or because we want to stay in power? Friggin sick.

Limerick on May 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM

We’re not going to solve a Sunni/Shiite rift that’s existed for 1400 years so why waste any more American lives trying to postpone it? The answer, or my answer, in two words: Pam Hess. It’d be unconscionable for the United States to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing in a country whose security we’ve taken responsibility for; if you believe some on the left (and right), it’s unconscionable for us to acquiesce in ethnic cleansing even in countries whose security we’re not responsible for, like Sudan.

The JihadWatch staff would have a huge problem with this statement, AP, and they’d flatly tell you you’re wrong.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM

The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing

And how many of those democrats support “doing something” about Darfur?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on May 11, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Redeployment to Kurdistan, at this point, makes the most sense. The first on the list for both Sunni and Shiite are the Kurds. I have a sneaking hunch the Turks would like them out of the way, as well. An independent Kurdish state might be the only good thing to come out of this mess.

Besides, I like the idea of a Peshmerga airforce.

Krydor on May 11, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Krydor on May 11, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Yep.

PRCalDude on May 11, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Limerick on May 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM

You are exactly correct, which is why we MUST fight our enemies, and protect our friends.

rockhauler on May 11, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Curiously overlooked in both this discussion and Mort’s piece is the prospect of the Iraqi parliment asking us to remove our troops. If that comes to pass the politically we will be left with no choice to go with a plan similar (if not alike) to Kondracke’s.

If Iraqi’s want us out of the country as expressed by the will of their elected leaders, then the consequences for what ensues is their responsibility, as they have been given every chance to make a peaceful society on their own. Of course, they will still blame us, but Muslims blame us for everything, so why worry about that aspect of it?

In short, the situation we are in know is a direct result of what Ralph Peters discuesses in his own piece this morning. We have fought this war not to win, but to please CNN, the left, and to avoid criticism for using the harsh measures necessary – and thus have guaranteed that the final outcome will be far worse than anything we would have done to achieve that victory in the first place.

thirteen28 on May 11, 2007 at 1:23 PM

The JihadWatch staff would have a huge problem with this statement, AP

No doubt.

Allahpundit on May 11, 2007 at 1:24 PM

Maybe someone should tell the Sunnis that this is what the Dems are asking for and maybe they’ll change their tune or at least say ‘Death to America’ a little more softly.

- The Cat

MirCat on May 11, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Let’s suppose, for a change, that the Bush administration is in fact aware of the Constitution and has been acting under it’s lead in Iraq. The question then becomes what is best for America and not what is best for Iraq.

I don’t advocate a precipitous pullout (or a non-percipitous pullout for that matter) from Iraq not because I am concerned about the fate of Shia v. Sunni. Yes, I don’t want to see a slaughter there but no more than I don’t want to see a slaughter in Darfur. The difference and why I support our troops staying in Iraq until we accomplish what we said was the mission 4 years ago is that the US has a strategic interest in Iraq. We don’t in Darfur. It’s the duty of the commander in chief to identify and take action against threats to the security of the US. The threat in Iraq is if anything greater now then it has ever been even if it doesn’t take the face of a nation state army such as Nazi Germany.

Presumably, there are a few people on Bush’s team who get this, too. Even if Mort Knodrake doesn’t.

JackStraw on May 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM

We have fought this war not to win, but to please CNN
thirteen28 on May 11, 2007 at 1:23 PM

bing-bada-boom……4 years boiled down and perfectly defined by 12 words.

Limerick on May 11, 2007 at 1:28 PM

bing-bada-boom……4 years boiled down and perfectly defined by 12 words.

Limerick on May 11, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Credit goes to Ralph Peters – I’m just repeating his words, but you and I both agree that boils it down to the essence of why we are in the present situation.

thirteen28 on May 11, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Maybe we should take the islamic approach.

Pull back and act innocent.

Lie to each side at every opportunity.

Supply each side with arms and ammunition.

Pray four times a day.

Get ready for WWIII.

Griz on May 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM

AP –

So long as the Iraqis are with us and want to continue the fight, I agree we have made great progress and have a moral duty to continue with our efforts. But what happens in the event the Iraqis fail to deliver on agreed milestones, or if they ask us to leave, or if the war is defunded by the Democrats except to allow for defensive positions and tactical support?

In such circumstances, you can’t deny there’d some upside to an Iranian-Saudi proxy fight while we ride things out in Kurdistan. Given that (1) we’re dealing with a war that by all accounts can’t be won by military might alone, (2) the Iraqis have been pretty much useless in helping us out, and (3) there’s long-term strategic advantage in reducing the strength of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, is this really such a poor result?

Also, this situation has overtones that go beyond the current struggle between the West and the Jihadis. The Shiite terrorists are proxies for the Iranians, but the Iranians are themselves proxies for the Chinese and the Russians. If their arming of Iran is not stopped soon, there’ll eventually be no turning back, and if we take Iran at their word with respect to their plans for Israel, are we not vectoring inexorably toward some larger showdown anyway?

So maybe now’s as good a time as any to find out who’s high-tech mojo is really the mightiest, before this situation gets even more out of hand than it already is.

Blacksheep on May 11, 2007 at 1:41 PM

We’re not going to solve a Sunni/Shiite rift that’s existed for 1400 years so why waste any more American lives trying to postpone it?

I have to agree with you. For these people it’s not a matter of politics or land. It’s a matter of a religion which they blow themselves up for. Nothing will stop them. The best you can do is keep them separated. They don’t listen to reason, they just want to kill each other, until one side is wiped off the earth.

amerpundit on May 11, 2007 at 1:45 PM

You know who I think should make the ultimated decision if we stay or leave? The troops. Why do the Democrats and Republicans refuse to ask them? No, I’m not talking about the generals, who often sit in offices. The troops. The boots on the ground who are there everyday, actually seeing, for themselves, what’s going on. The question should be, “Do you think it’s worth staying anymore?”.

amerpundit on May 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM

You know who I think should make the ultimate decision if we stay or leave? The troops …. The question should be, “Do you think it’s worth staying anymore?”

I believe the answer to that question would be an unqualified “yes.”

Blacksheep on May 11, 2007 at 1:53 PM

The boots on the ground who are there everyday, actually seeing, for themselves, what’s going on. The question should be, “Do you think it’s worth staying anymore?”.

amerpundit on May 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Pure genius. Someone should do it if only ‘for the record.’ [And I don't mean for Greta's show.]

Griz on May 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Exit question: Kondracke says he knows one member of Congress secretly supports his plan. Who?

I’d go out on a limb and suggest it is a member of the senior House of Congress, one that once belonged to an organization quite comfortable with subjugating other minority groups, and with copious amounts of “pork.”

Bob Owens on May 11, 2007 at 1:55 PM

I think he forgot the snark of Johnathan Swift; otherwise this would’ve been a hilarious op-ed.

Nonfactor on May 11, 2007 at 2:10 PM

You know who I think should make the ultimate decision if we stay or leave? The troops …. The question should be, “Do you think it’s worth staying anymore?”

I believe the answer to that question would be an unqualified “yes.”

Blacksheep on May 11, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I wonder if they might throw in the caveat: “if we are allowed to take the gloves off.”

thirteen28 on May 11, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Peters is spot-on. Nearly every tactical mistake we’ve made since the fall of Saddam has been on the side of being too nice. It’s part and parcel of the whole “winning the hearts and minds” effort to remake the Middle East, but that’s just not how you win wars. Go read Carnage and Culture by VDH. The West is the power it is today because for the last 2500 years we’ve been more ruthlessly efficient killers than the rest of the world. Western Culture favors head-on, decisive battle that completely annihilates the other side’s ability to make war even if we take some casualties to do it. Our society just doesn’t accept long, drawn out conflicts like this one or Vietnam. The UN and Human Rights Watch is going to howl no matter how much we pussy foot around these savages, so we might as well put earn that unpopularity.

Dudley Smith on May 11, 2007 at 3:32 PM

We all seem to be forgetting something.

After WWII, we did not allow the Germans to have the Bundestag ask us to leave.

They were defeated by us, so we got to decide when we were going to leave.

If Mookie and/or a bunch of AQ pukes want to declare war on us, kill them all. If a neighboring state wants to supply them, declare war, give them 24 hours to capitulate, and then nuke their cites if they do not.

Kristopher on May 11, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Kristopher on May 11, 2007 at 3:46 PM

The problem with your analogy is that we foolishly didn’t handle Iraq like WWII. In WWII, we didn’t let them have their own governments. We set up a military dictatorship until it pleased us to write their constitution for them and tell them how to implement it.

Lehosh on May 11, 2007 at 4:13 PM

Trackbacks not working (at lest not for me).

baldilocks on May 11, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Kristopher on May 11, 2007 at 3:46 PM

As Lehosh says above me, the analogy is flawed because we didn’t approach this like WWII – we were too busy trying to please others, e.g., the media, the world community, and the thing we feared most was to be seen in a bad light over the Iraq operation. Thus, instead of fighting this war like an actual war, we have fought it like a public relations campaign, thereby ensuring failure to achieve our objectives at both.

thirteen28 on May 11, 2007 at 4:19 PM

You know, AP, when people want to kill each other badly enough, they’re not going to let something like US soldiers get in the way. We cannot force these people to be reasonable at the point of a gun and our attempts for the past 4 years have failed.

Kondracke is only (finally) admitting to the reality of the endgame in Iraq.

NPP on May 11, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Oddly the anti war just doesnt get a clue that their stance on getting the US out of Iraq will create the very genocide and civil war they accuse the US of Causing right now.

Anything and everything that happens in Iraq now will be called “Bush’s fault” even if the US leaves.

The whole thing has never been about the US. Its all been about playing politics with human lives at stake for the anti war movement.

William Amos on May 11, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Very good post AP

My biggest problem with this war is our governments lack of strength shown against the interference by Iran and/or the lack of, by the Sauds. The Evil heads of the snakes of each religion reside in those two countries. If we cut the heads we kill the insurgency, but we are being played by both countries. What is really scary to think is that each country may be acting in unison. Maybe not directly in contact with each other, but as the old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. No one can deny they all listen to the same hate propaganda. Death to America, Death to Israel.

abinitioadinfinitum on May 11, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Kristopher,
My husband and I have often thought the same thing as you in regards to this war and other circumstances going on in the world. Although I do agree that it has been handled poorly and there has been too much appeasement, at some point, it would be nice to have a leader who would just say “to hell with it” to a country that is filled with terrorists or supplying them and give notice that if they don’t stop, we’ll nuke them. 24 hours notice to the people of that country that if they want out, they’d better get out. If the leaders don’t comply, FOLLOW through.
The problem is, there is nobody with the guts to do it. And there are too many bleeding hearts who would cry about “all the innocent people”. Bull. If you live in a country that supports terrorism, and someone tells you to leave because a bomb is coming, leave. If you don’t, then you’ve chosen to stay and harbor terrorists. Do you think anybody would continue to supply terrorists after that? They’d sure think twice.
I know it’s harsh, but it’s harsh times.

serpentineshel on May 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM

The war hasn’t failed because we arent fighting a war. We are conducting a failed police action and humanitarian statebuilding mission similiar to every failed mission the U.N. engages in. Plan B should be to actually go to war. Retreat when people there still have even an ounce of willpower left to try and kill us should be like plan Z.

Resolute on May 11, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Oddly the anti war just doesnt get a clue that their stance on getting the US out of Iraq will create the very genocide and civil war they accuse the US of Causing right now.

[...]

William Amos on May 11, 2007 at 4:52 PM

You’re wrong. They do have a clue. The key is that they don’t care.

Anti-war movements have nothing to do with war. If the anti-war left gave a flying crap about War or Violence in any objective sense we would not see them heaping praise on the Palestinians, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Hu Jintao, Che, etc. etc.

Search DailyKos for a few key words like “intervention” “police the world” and “used to” and you’ll see that the left was all about intervention… unless Bush is the one intervening. Their primary goal is to defeat the Right, because they see the Right as the cause of the world’s problems: the only thing keeping the Left from “fixing” humanity. They don’t give a crap what happens in Iraq because, quite frankly, the worse it is, the more they can use it against the Right. No matter how many people die, it is worth it if it defeats the Right, because once the Right is defeated, then the Left will have no roadblock to healing the world.

If you accept that the only thing stopping the Left from healing humanity is the Right, then their actions make perfect sense. They don’t care about individual issues because there is only one issue that, if solved, will magically cure all others: defeating the Right.

Lehosh on May 11, 2007 at 6:11 PM

WOW. There’s just so much to consider here concerning Iraq. There’s the Shia vs. Sunni thing, which has been going on for over a millenia. Sunni’s at heart consider Shia’s to be apostates, only marginally better than the apes and pigs they consider us. That explains why they feel so superior even when grossly outnumbered in a democracy. “True” muslims (Sunni) will never submit to domination by apostates (shia).
Now throw in the specter of a proxy war with Iraq in the middle. If the US takes that approach, which would be the result of stepping to the sidelines, we’d better hope that their bloodlust is well sated, and their will to fight sapped completely when it is over, or both sides will see us as the one who hit the bee’s nest and ran away.
Now sweeten the pot of moral ambivalence with the knowledge that both sides in that proxy war would glut the market with cheap oil, (assuming it would get through the straits safely) making gas here cheaper than it has been for years.
Mix in a political party here at home that sees every American casualty as another shim in the door to the white house, and funding the troops as a political gambit to be toyed with.
Just for a little spice, toss in Iran’s already-proxy army, Hezbollah, and the chaos they can cause in Lebanon and Israel.
Now let this soup simmer until it’s just about ready to boil over, and what do you have?
Sounds like the recipe for Quagmire to me, much as it pains me to say it.
I’d loved to have been a fly on the wall when the Administration was strategerizing this, but wouldn’t want to be in any of their shoes now.

OneEyedJack on May 11, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Well, now I read that last post, and it seems overly pessimistic. But it sure would be nice to see some clearly defined goals and bold leadership to achieve them.

OneEyedJack on May 11, 2007 at 6:30 PM

I don’t want to hear about Sudan anymore.

Sudan is muslims killing Christians and/or others, and we can’t have Christians fighting back.

SouthernGent on May 11, 2007 at 7:17 PM

When we leave, we have to leave with a good faith belief that the two sides can co-exist, which is why political reconciliation within parliament is so important and why we’re stuck there until it happens.

Is this statement historically accurate? Well, maybe the American people would like to believe this about themselves — but 32 years ago, I honestly believe that Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, congressional leaders, et. al. KNEW precisely what was going to happen in southeast asia in the time period that was to follow shortly after the U.S. withdrawal. Millions died in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left. We left anyway, fully cognizant of what was going to happen.

Ironically, we (the U.S. and Vietnam) are practically best buddies today. I can not visit the shopping mall and buy an article clothing for myself or for someone else without seeing multiple instances of the phrase “Made in Vietnam.”
Did simple economic necessity somehow overcome the harsh feelings that were left behind — by what some people have described as U.S. complicity in mass murder? Probably not, since the people that died are simply “not around anymore” to hold a grudge against the United States.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a part of the “blame America first” crowd, and I despise Jane Fonda’s mindset as much as the rest of you. And even though I admire Pam Hess for taking a stand, I don’t necesarily share the same feelings or the compelling obligation to save the children of two Islamic cultures that are bent on killing each other (or anyone else who disagrees with them, for that matter, on religious, social, or political issues). If there is one thing that I have learned in life, it is not to step in the way of people who are determined to bring about their own destruction — it’s about as smart as stepping in front of a moving freight train. These people are most likely going to find a way to die prematurely, no matter what.

Or am I hallucinating or over-simplifying things?

CyberCipher on May 11, 2007 at 8:31 PM

So.. if I understand all this correctly. Nuking them would actually be in their own best interests. Right?

Mojave Mark on May 11, 2007 at 10:28 PM

So.. if I understand all this correctly. Nuking them would actually be in their own best interests. Right?

Mojave Mark on May 11, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Presuming that your comment was aimed at me, killing Muslims en mass is not what I would recommend or advocate. Mort Kondracke is a buffoon, as far as I am concerned.

Nevertheless, I am reminded of something that Golda Meir said a long time ago, viz.

“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”

I don’t believe that simply “walking away” from a culture or a people that are bent on killing each other and killing their children is either immoral or un-Christian. The United States has made an extraordinary effort to help the people of Iraq, but if Iraqis reject all that we have done for them, and insist upon killing one another, we probably ought to leave their part of the world and “shake the dust off of our feet” (just as Jesus instructed his disciples to do when the message of the Gospel preached by pairs of his disciples was rejected).

I don’t necessarily think that right now is the time for us to pursue that particular course of action. Other people are in a far better position to make that judgement call than I am. I just don’t think that our help to the Iraqis should be “open-ended.” I don’t think George Bush believes that it should be “open-ended” either.

CyberCipher on May 11, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Wait…wtf? Did I just see a UPI reporter crying on camera because of her emotional memories of our compassionate and idealistic … soldiers?!

Nah … I must have dozed off.

Jaibones on May 12, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Jaibones on May 12, 2007 at 12:01 AM

You did indeed. You were NOT hallucinating.
Pam Hess is rather extraordinary in that respect,
n’est-ce pas?

CyberCipher on May 12, 2007 at 12:06 AM

The irony is that it probably wouldn’t happen anyway. The Saudis aren’t going to sit by while Shiite fanatics run wild in a Sunni area; they’ve already promised as much through one of their mouthpieces. So what Kondracke’s really calling for, even if he doesn’t realize it, is a Saudi-Iranian proxy war (or actual war) with Iraqis in the middle.

Allah — peace be upon him — has constructed a fine summary here which begs the question of Uncle Morty: “Shiites ‘friendly to the U.S.’?!”

As if…

Jaibones on May 12, 2007 at 12:09 AM

So.. if I understand all this correctly. Nuking them would actually be in their own best interests. Right?

Mojave Mark on May 11, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Presuming that your comment was aimed at me, killing Muslims en mass is not what I would recommend or advocate. Mort Kondracke is a buffoon, as far as I am concerned.

No, my comment wasn’t aimed at anyone it was an ironic comment about how absurd dealing with these Muslim fanatics is. Think “The Onion” type of sarcasm.

I think we should be there now to stabilize the situation and help to create a democracy ala Turkey in Iraq. These Muslims hate each other so very much that it makes it hard to do. It’s also hard for the Western mind to understand such primal murderous hatred for fellow human beings. Pakistan will probably light off the first terrorism nuke and then we’ll see what happens. Who knows maybe it may come one day to a country being annihilated. We should not assume that it will be Iran.

Mojave Mark on May 12, 2007 at 1:49 AM

CyberCipher on May 11, 2007 at 8:31 PM

Sounds right to me. Robert Spencer would certainly agree with you.

PRCalDude on May 12, 2007 at 6:32 PM