This is why, as I have said before, removing the secular saddam was a naive gambit.

He wasn’t all that secular when it suited him. I think it was right to remove him but he should have been replaced by Allawi or Chalabi imo, both reasonable men.

You have made some very excellent points here.

I thought “conservatism” meant the following:

—skeptical of government’s abililty to solve problems of cultural or religious origin
—distrust or skeptical about government’s ability to change cultures

The Iraq war was anything but a conservative-backed war. It was a war backed by neo-cons who believe we can change culture and disputes simply by dropping bombs and introducing foreign ideas of Western democracy.

The consequences of the Iraq war have emboldened Iran. Iran is 10 times stronger, more influential now, than before the invasion. At least before, Suddam (Sunni) was a check to hold Shia in balance. Now, the whole economic and cultural area of southern Iraq is clearly in Iran’s control.

PowWow on July 20, 2007 at 11:21 PM

How about that? Quoting myself. Just reading another artice that says he’s begging taliban for peace. Hmmm

Right on the money about partitioning. I’ve thought that from the first time I heard it. Many seem to endorse it. But all we have to do is look at Africa and what’s still going on today. Yes it’s a much larger area. But I believe the same rukles apply. Even the UK, similarly, Ireland Scotland, Wales all on their own but under British rule. For now it’s pretty quiet with each other. But it wasn’t that long ago that No. Ireland was like the ME.
Anyway Musharraf to his credit has helped us along the way since 9/11. We as a have stood by his side. Is this a case of the dictator you know is better than the dictator you don’t?

Freedom without security is chaos.

And then to be free enough fulfill their desires.

It’s what they desire that brings the Clash.

Some desire a global tyranny …with their own uber-tribal bosses ruling everything and everyone eternally.

Some desire a cooperative democratic republic of free agents working toward creative liberation of the human spirit.

These aims tend to be unreconcilable.

What Atatürk did in Turkey was not uncommon of what the Ottomans did everywhere in the Middle East during their imperial rule. Both forms of governing unabashedly squashed any form of uprising and drummed up the individual’s right to be… individualistic. It should be noted that the Ottomans were a little less so in the freedoms then Atatürk was but nevertheless both experienced a grand amount of peaceful time (so far as quelling evil).

Furthermore any form of democracy the entirety of the Middle East has seen is in the form of foreign powers muddling (is that a word?) in the affairs of state. In every sense of the word since the beginning of recorded time Middle Easterners have hated Democracy, and everything it stands for, because of Western Democracy’s influence in the Middle East – an influence that has never propped up the Arab people (or likewise contemporaries).

In the case of the Sheriff, again Democracy means very little to him and his people. What they care about is economy. They have none, and when you have none there brews a vial hatred for everything and anything you can get your hands on. For example… Pakistan has fought six modern era wars with India not because the other side is Hindu but because India had power in the region; they were the ones with all the ports, farmland, and tributaries. Over time Pakistani hatred for everything Indian grew to the point where it became a label they had genetically fostered onto their collective foreheads. Were they going to embrace democracy so they could be more like India? No. Why would you embrace something you most vehemntly hate? It’s like the school yard bully putting on those dorky glasses and starting to study… of which the probability of occurring is very little.

Therein this economic paradigm that spreads throughout the Middle East like vial Pink Shirted nutroots over a DNC convention, is the sole proprietor of our failures in the Middle East.

So long as western countries take oil out of the hands of the Middle Easterners,

So long as big Western corporations continue to import every little thing into the Middle East,

So long as foreign governments continue to shy away from staring the Middle Easterners in the eye and instead focus all their efforts on the Governments of said peoples,

So long as the Middle East continues it’s bout with a lack of a proper educational system (outside of the Qur’an), lack of a proper economic system, lack of proper basic civil services they see every other western nation have,

The Middle East will continue it’s downward spiral into self annihilation.

For America a stable, peaceful, cooperative Middle East would be wonderful… but as far they see it the Middle East wants nothing to do with another form of governing power, called Western Democracy, telling them what to do. Like your article noted, they’d rather be telling their people what to do then Western countries telling them what to do, the same Western countries that have been giving them shit for the last couple centuries, and the people rightly don’t care because they don’t have bread on the table, security in the streets (let alone streets), schools for their kids, hospitals for their sick (or doctors for that matter) – and they don’t want any of it to come from what they perceive to be power and greed-hungry-Christianized-white-man Western Democracies.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1068

Maybe we should start listening to that guy.

Something I would like to see addressed at some point is the number of Iraqi police and soldiers that we’re training. All that authority, political power and sheer muscle will be difficult to dismantle even after Iraq is pacified (if it ever is). We’ll end up with a similar situation to Pakistan–whoever controls the guns will control the country–or worse, run by a Beria clone.

We in the West must always take the long view from now on. Islam is at war with civilization. It’s more dangerous than the fascists of the 20th century as it combines pure fascism with a satanic death cult. There may be moderate Muslims but Islam itself is radical. Any once of support to any sharia government works against us in the long term. History tells us that you can’t win over these brainwashed minions so let’s stop pretending.

This is why, as I have said before, removing the secular saddam was a naive gambit. The removal of a secular dictator in iraq, under the auspices of fighting the war on terror, was highly ironic, considering that George Bush ushered in the very islamic militants we were supposed to be at war with post 9/11. Instead of attacking an islamic theocracy, such as Iran, which would have at least been consistent with the idea of going to war with terrorism, he attacks a secular dictator that for 24 years suppressed those very islamic militants that are now emboldened and running wild in the absence of a dictator to keep them in line.

Then, in another sweeping irony coming on the heels of 9/11, Musharraf, the man who George hails as an “ally on the war on terror”, happens to the one man on earth who can, did, and continues to, protect osama bin laden from capture, the man George said he wanted “dead or alive”, and this, the very same Musharraf who has allowed the Taliban, a foe supposedly vanquished years ago, to set up shop and get right back into business of threatening America.

What we need for Iraq and Afghanistan, is no doubt, not democracy. Georgie boy couldn’t be more wrong on that. Democracy is only as good as the culture that practices it. Garbage in/garbage out. In Algeria, for example, they elected a radical muslim party to power in 1994, and the government had to nullify the election just to keep the islamists from coming to power. Democracy does not fight extremism if the masses are extreme, or easily cowed – both qualities of arab culture.

However, what we do need is certainly not a Musharraf. He has proven that. He utterly lacks the ruthlessness to rule over an islamic nation. He is the worst of both worlds – neither good enough to be democratic nor bad enough to be an effective dictator. Ultimately, in the final analysis, what we need in Iraq is neither a Musharraf nor democracy. What we need is a saddam.

How’s that for irony?

Krykee. Pakistan. One assassination away from being a nuclear islamo-facist regime.

Democracy by its nature is anti Islam.

We should not expect people who have never been exposed to our freedom to desire them.

We should not expect people who believe in Sharia law to want Democracy.

It will be a long fight.