An Open Letter to Mohammed Fadhil
Posted by Lance on 14 May 2007 at 6:50 am | Tagged as: Notes on the war, Lance's Page, Foreign affairs, Domestic Politics
The central question you ask is this:
The cost of liberating Europe in the last century was enormous in blood and treasure. In fact, it took half a century of American military presence thereafter to protect those nations from subsequent threats. If that made sense during a Cold War, and it did, then I don’t understand why anyone would demand a pullout from Iraq (and maybe later, the entire Middle East) when the enemies are using every evil technique, from booby trapped dead animals to hijacked civilian aircrafts, to kill innocents.
If I were you Mohammed, I would also wonder why, given the enormous sacrifices America has made on behalf of Europe, we would abandon you when we could massively increase our effort and not come close to the cost of even one year of WWII.
There are several answers, many are almost irrelevant, such as we were lied to, or the occupation has been incompetent, political hatred of Bush, etc. They are irrelevant not only because those objections are about the past rather than what is the best move going forward, but because one would assume that we wouldn’t have abandoned the fight against Hitler just because we decided Roosevelt was a bad President. We pointedly refused to allow Hitler to agree to something other than total and unconditional defeat. So it wasn’t about whether he was any longer a direct threat to the United States. No, we decided the enormous cost of achieving that victory was worth it because we didn’t want him ruling over anybody in Europe. These excuses are only valid to the people making them because they are willing to allow the forces you are struggling against to rule over you.
Others are more on point.
One contention is that Iraq, unlike Germany, Italy and Japan is not ready for democracy. I have some sympathy for that, though the evidence to doubt all three of those powers readiness for democracy was pretty prevalent both before, during and after WWII.
I also am not so sure that Iraq is unready either. I think Iraq is not ready while surrounded by forces from without sending in fighters, and financially supporting those who would resist it. If Iraq were able to deal with its resistance without outside interference it would probably already have conquered its major demons with our help. Germany’s resistance after major military operations were over was thoroughly isolated.
That is of course not a reason to ignore. Reality dictates that however worthy a cause, the costs of that effort have to be weighed, and the inability to restrain outside meddling is certainly a major issue. However, as you have pointed out, the resources to absorb the cost of doing so is well within our reach. So that is not the core issue.
The real reason is we don’t care enough. Why would we value you and your family less? It is a hard thing to say to you, though I have no doubt you know it in your heart. Europe was not only the home of most of our ancestors, the source of the intellectual, philosophical and spiritual traditions which guided us, but it is familiar and comforting to us as well. You, however, are far more culturally, spiritually and historically divorced from us, or at least we believe that to be true. You are the other, Europe is related. I have written of the way we tend to view these things, and it is human nature. Some of us see the gap between our caring for our family, country, and countries we are more familiar with, in descending importance, as smaller than others do. I cannot honestly say I don’t feel to some extent the same way, but the difference isn’t as large as it is for most Americans or Europeans apparently. Iraq was fine when it was thought (foolishly) that it would be quick and easy. Unfortunately Americans are not willing to spend 1/20th of what we would to save Europe in resources, and we are not willing to spend 1/1000th of what we would in casualties, for Iraq. That is the cold hard truth.
I tried to have this conversation with a blogger here in America who is one of the most extreme in her desire for withdrawal. I presented a situation quite analogous to the Middle East, but placed the issue in Europe. In that circumstance she was more than willing to say she would support our involvement. When I pointed out that that was exactly the situation we faced in the Middle East, she abandoned the conversation. She didn’t want to face the implications of it, but we all know it is true.
I will point out I am not immune to this, I would be more willing to defend democracy and take on terror in Europe as well. I acknowledge it, though I cannot justify it except to the extent I do in the post I linked to above. I am also not comfortable with that truth, and it embarrasses me to say it to you, but it is the truth. All I can say is that the difference is not so huge in my case, and for now I am with you. Unfortunately for most Americans the difference is not merely large, it is a chasm. That even goes for many who support our continued presence in Iraq, they don’t care about you, but about how defeat affects us. I do care, a great deal, but I understand, due to my own prejudices on this, exactly where most of my countrymen are coming from, even if I care far more than they. I am sure you actually know this as well, I am sure that even the most progressive of Iraqi’s recognize this type of prejudice amongst themselves.
I wish you the best, and you have my support,
Lance
Hat tip, Pejman, Instapundit and Michael Totten.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, Europe, Middle East, WWII
7 Responses to “An Open Letter to Mohammed Fadhil”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
An Open Letter…
to Mohammed Fadhil, of Iraq The Model, from Lance @ Second Hand Conjecture…….
I would also add to the above “open letter” the following comments:
Europe is not like the Middle East in many ways. The stakes are different. The contours of the battle line are different. The nature of the enemy we fight is COMPLETELY different. Therefore this war is different, and will remain different to its conclusion, whatever that may be.
This war has only begun.
Personally, I think the more Americans learn about the true nexis of this conflict — and the truth about the forces animating our enemy — forces which are ALL influenced by variations on the theme of ISLAM — the more we understand that this is a different kind of conflict than what we have ever faced before.
Further, our enemy is not only located in a specific geographic region, but we have foolishly allowed millions of this enemy to begin colonizing us from within without the slightest clue as to their intentions and ultimate goals…
It’s not as if our enemy resided in one or two geographic places, as they did in WW2, and it is not as if they subsribed to a largely homogenous ideology which we could concentrate on annihilating as we did with Supremacist Nazi Germany and Supremacist Imperialist Japan…
Islam is widespread. Islam’s manifestations of supremacist doctrine and Jihad sentiments vary widely, though their goal is consistent — the spread of Islam and Islam’s supremacy over all competing ideologies….
Unlike Germany and Japan, which numbered under 100,000,000 collectively, there are 1.2 billion Muslims on earth. They are spread over a wide geographic area, and participate in virtually tens of thousands of localized violent jihads, and thousands of internationalized violent jihads. Muslims are also engaged in non-violent Jihads to spread Islam, which then provides countless new metastitic sites where violence may erupt at any moment. Islam pervades the region, and is beginning to pervade the dialogue across the planet — Islam is more than a simple supremacist racist ideology, as Nazism and Japanese supremacy were — it is an all encompassing cosmology with a million faces, Islam explains to its “believers” the very nature of man, the universe, everything. It has been around for 1400 years, unlike Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. It has taught its votaries to hate “the other” for over 1400 years, to kill “the other” for over 1400 years, to subjugate “the other” for over 1400 years.
Unlike German and Japanese racists supremacism, which required racial purity as their main planks for supremacism, all one need to is embrace Islam, state that “God there is not but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” - and anyone can become part of the Islamic jihad for Muslim supremacy on earth — this makes it different in every respect from German and Japanese supremacism. It makes Islam MUCH MORE DANGEROUS — and much more metastatic in nature.
Islam has proven itself to be an effective enzyme at destroying former great and superior civilizations, think Byzantium, think Persia, think India…
Whereas Nazism existed in a specific place, and for a specific duration, Islam has pervaded entire quarters of the planet for over a millennium — and served as a vehicle for a primitive form of Arab colonization since its inception. Beating back this primitive eating machine, this juggernaut of backwardness, will not be the same as destroying German or Japanese racist imperialism.
Arab racist imperialism is a different enemy. Less technologically advanced than the Japanese and German virus, but well equipped to destroy nevertheless. The sacralized tribalism of the Arabs enshrined within Islam don’t require sophisticated weapons and brilliant battlefield maneuvers and theories…
It only requires overbreeding — and adherence to very primitive forms of subjugation, terror, and thought control.
The war Islam mandates against “non-believers” is also different. Islam’s votaries are suffused with more than a thousand years of subjugation under its heinous hatred filled sway. Whether they be Arab or not, all Muslims act to forward an Arabist racist supremacist ideology, whether they are simply reading the Koran in Arabic, assuming Arabic names, or blowing Jews and Australians in pizza parlors.
This enemy is different in another important way:
Germany and Japan in the end proved themselves extremely apt students at jettisoning their shattered ideologies once we extinquished thier epicenters. What are the epicenters of the hydra of Islam? Would the bombing of Mecca and Medina destroy Islam, or fuel its hatred utterly? Would the absolute and true destruction of centers like Riyadh and Tehran do anything to stop Jihad in London, Chechnya, France, Canada, etc? Or would bombing a few epicenters simply fuel the Jihad of Muslims everywhere?
We know the answer. And while the world holds its breath, hoping against hope that Muslims will take charge of their religion and prove to the rest of us that Islam and Muslims can live in the crowded earth without posing existential threats to everyone else, as we hope against hope that you will fix your heinous societies — we fear to even gaze upon the actions we probably must take to survive your onslaught.
With Islam — we have not yet even named our enemy — we know that doing so would make our battle far more deadly than it is today — I think we also know in our hearts that the armageddon which will ensue once the sides are truly drawn up in this battle, that the look of the thing is nothing short of apocalyptic.
It is Islam’s fault. I blame Islam and Muslims for ALL OF IT.
Islam is the ideology which divides the world inflexibly into “believer and non-believer” “infidels and Muslims” the “house of Islam and the house of war”.
We, on the other hand have demonstrated our ability to live, albeit sometimes fractiously, alongside hindu, jew, christian, atheist, buddhist, sikh, etc etc.
Islam’s heinousness, Islam’s pervasiveness, Islam’s intransigence, Islam’s inability to tolerate “the other”, Islam’s incapacity for self reflection and self adjustment, Islam’s core tenets of hatred, loathing, and even genocide — all of these make the coming collision a horror to contemplate.
These things too are known in our respective hearts. Who wants to say such things? Who wants to gaze on such things, and upon seeing the nature and scope and tragedy of the conflict, who then wants to play out the inevitable trajectory this must take?
I am sorry to say that, in the end, it will either be the destruction of Islam and the societies which are devoted to it, or it will be the destruction of US.
Frankly, I don’t know who will “win” this epic battle, unprecedented in human history.
But it is not WE who would want it so — and I’m sure many Muslims unfortunate to be born under Islam’s moon also rue these facts.
But nevertheless — if the Muslims show and prove their incapacity to repudiate al Qaida type Muslim Brotherhood type Sadrist type Hezbollah type Hamas type Jumaat Islamiya type Muslim forms of Nazism, and worse, continue to spew forth ever more horrid, ever more envigorated forms of these cancerous ideologies, and WORSE, show that they desire US to fight these enemies more than they themselves are willing, then all hope is lost.
And I know, if push comes to shove, and I am forced to decide in such stark terms between “us” and “them”, a decision Islam is forcing on all - then I choose US ever time.
EVERY TIME.
You don’t see too many Americans walking around with guilt complexes over what the Japanese forced us to do to end our conflict with them. How much worse will it be before we get Islam to capitulate unconditionally? It is not we who want it so, but Islam and Muslims at every turn force our hand in this.
Good post, but there is a certain fact that the West continues to be ignorant about and that is that Democracy is against the Muslim religion. It is that simple. Don’t believe what I say, go see for yourself, read the Koran, review the history of Dhimmitude, study Khomeini, but most importantly research the present Arab constitutions, they are all based on Sharia, in Jordan it is illegal for a Jew to own land, Lebanon is the world’s biggest terrorist state, Muslim rioting against Christians in Egypt is quickly eroding the Coptic Church. I agree with Fadhil, but lets leave democracy out of the Iraqi equation- because democracy is against the Muslim religion.
Maybe, though I know many Muslims and of many scholars, who do not agree. You can argue it shouldn’t be, just like Christians can argue about things they claim are absolutely forbidden with another that says it is not. It doesn’t matter, many Muslims feel it is allowed. I am not going to try and convince them otherwise.
There are countries which are majority Muslim which are democratic, and the vast majority of its citizens believe that is not against their religion and they are under attack by Al Qaeda. I choose to consider them allies.
Most Iraqi’s have demonstrated they do believe it is okay, though given the sorry state of affairs they now live under many I am sure are hankering for a strongman. Once again it doesn’t matter, most Iraqi’s had no religious problem with voting when they had the chance.
As a religious scholar you can say democracy is against their faith as an intellectual exercise, but I don’t think it pays for us to convince them that Bin Laden or Khomeini is right. Most Iranians, for example, don’t agree with Khomeini. Why tell them they should?
I concur with your assessment, but of any middle eastern country, I would think Iraq would be the one that would grab the concept of a democratic society. Maybe not the kind we as Americans’ are familiar with, but a sectarian type government. Turkey comes to mind. Currently, they are having massive demonstrations calling for more democratic reforms apart from the military and Islamic law. In the past,the military would take over the country, when this balance was threatened, such as, any time religion started to become too entrenched. Not to say they are not the people are not Islamic, they are, but sectarian. They are also very nationalistic Turkish first. Iraq does not seem to have this feeling of being Iraqi first,
They has been under dictatorships for so long it will be much longer for them to stand up and think as an individual. Their society is extended family and tribal, not individual. Change will come, but will we have the fortitude and money to see it through. I certainly hope so.
Actually, the only argument offered by jihadis and their co-religionists is that “man cannot rule over man,” which is obviously an absurd statement, since there isn’t anyone else to do it, and no one else to make laws. Anyone familiar with any Islamic community in the USA knows that Muslims are constantly going to their imams and asking questions like “Can Fatimah go to the spring middle school dance with a dress that shows her clavicle?” The assertion by these people that there is some sort of metaphysical obstacle to the simple acceptance of system of government in which they regularly vote and that those in power respect being voted out of office is simply absurd. It is rather the proposition of a mafiosi, of a tribal leader who is used to brooking no challenge to his own power, than the conclusion of a master of both cultures.
The West must recognize that the Islamic world and the Arab world in particular is vulnerable to depradations of demagogues and conquerors to a degree that even the most jaded of us are no longer familiar with. This is not the result of a religious axiom: it is the result of not having experienced the upheavals that occurred from the Long Parliament onward, the cumulative effect of which were the conquest of the monarchical system. Note that this did not really occur anywhere without theretofore unprecedented violence - Cromwell, the Thirty Years War (forcing the religious political moderation), American Revolution, French Revolution, World War I, World War II.
C’mon. All this nonsense about democracy only occuring where the people spontaneously vote it into existence is complete fantasy. That IS NOT how it has worked, ANYWHERE.
The reason we are having trouble in Iraq is that we do not slaughter people like al-Sadr, and do not destroy a recalcitrant city like Ramadi, because our statesmen and allies insist that this would only result in a backlash. Instead, they are content to watch as these people and places provide a refuge for troublesome and murderous imaginations that cannot grasp the actual practice of democracy, or can grasp it and are adamant that groups or persons they hate will share power with them. That is the long and the short of it. If we killed these people immediately, believe me, it would disuade successors, and deprive otherwise witless and vicious morons the political architecture that allwos them to come to some kind of public maturity.
Don’t kill al-Sadr, they said, or arrest him - it would cause his followers to rise up in violence.
Oh? And what’s happening now?
Don’t bomb Fallujah - not everyone did it, and you’ll only make more terrorists of the innocent victims!
Oh really? Yes, it’s much more sensitive and sophisticated to allow it to become a gigantic version of what the precipitating act already announced it to be.
If the underlying concern of all this reticence is that “the Iraqis are just like us, man,” then the only reasonable way of addressing such problems as these is to think, “Gee, how would I feel about the neighborhood teenagers patrolling around in white pick-up trucks with AK-47s and heavy machine guns jacked up on the bed - even if they were on my team? Would I like that?”
No stupid, you would not like that. If you cannot understand even that much, then maybe you should accept the fact that, just as you are not a master chef or an amateur violin virtuoso or an antitrust lawyer, perhaps you ought not imagine you are a very good policy analyst, historian or military tactician, either.
I think Most muslims in the middle east would prefer a democracy. Sharia law is not what they ALL want. Just a few million nut cases many of whom have infiltrated Europe, Canada, America, Australia, the Netherlands and are now setting up shop in most all countries around the world including South America. If you look at what is REALLY going on around the world, this war is acually going to (if not already) spilling over into all countries and we are going to have to take this on! It is time to start putting a stop to Sharia LAW once and for all. These muslim jihadis are using the internet, the courts and our learning institutions as the battleground and they have far left loonbats to help them set up shop. Sharia Law is backwards, it is ugly, it is wrong on so many levels and it is not good for any muslim. And for anyone who says “but it is all the muslims know”… I call bull****! It needs to be stopped. The younger generation of muslims are wanting to have more freedom. They want to be able to make their own choices of how they dress, how they act, the education they receive. If you look at what is going on in Iran, those “youth” want more than what Kohmeni has to offer.
As for Iraq… I have hope and I think it can be the beginning of something great for the entire middle east. IF we can stick this out and drive out the Jihadists it can work. I also think that it will give hope to the Syrian people, the Egyptians, Saudis, and Iranian people who also would like a democracy. There is hope. This will take a long time, but it can happen. It needs to happen for all of our sakes.