Myths and realities: winning on the battlefield and losing at home
Posted by: McQ
The QandO Blog
Saturday, June 18, 2005
So what does this tell us?
<<<
U.S. Marines said Saturday that about 50 insurgents have been killed so far in the American military's latest campaign to stop foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq from neighboring Syria. About 100 insurgents have also been captured in the operation that began Friday in Karabilah, about 200 miles west of Baghdad.
The campaign was being waged by about 1,000 Marines and Iraqi forces, backed by main battle tanks.
Karabilah is just outside Qaim in the volatile Anbar province.
>>>
In so many words, it tells us the American combat focus in Iraq has shifted to the west, near the Syrian border.
What does that mean? It means we’ve become serious about defeating the foreign terrorist element of the so-called “insurgency”.
Victor David Hanson reveals some interesting tidbits gleaned from the Washington Post and the International Tribune in a column yesterday.
Much of it comes from an interview with a Syrian “coyote” or smuggler of jihadis. Abu Ibrahim claimed the following:
<<<
(1) that the goal of the jihadists is the restoration of the ancient caliphate ("The Koran is a constitution, a law to govern the world")
(2) that September 11 was "a great day"
(3) that two weeks after the attack, a celebration was held in his rural Syrian community celebrating the mass murder, and thereafter continued twice-weekly.
>>>
Nothing particularly revealing there except that, as VDH mentions later, the hate for America obviously preceded invading Iraq.
<<<
(4) that Syrian officials attended such festivities, funded by Saudi money with public slogans that read, "The People ...Will Now Defeat the Jews and Kill Them All"
(5) that despite denials, Syrian police aided the jihadists in their efforts to hound out Western influence: They were allowed to enforce their strict vision of sharia, or Islamic law, entering houses in the middle of the night to confront people accused of bad behavior. Abu Ibrahim said their authority rivaled that of the Amn Dawla, or state security. "Everyone knew us," he said. "We all had big beards. We became thugs."
(6) that the Syrian government does not hesitate to work with Islamists ("beards and epaulets were in one trench together")
>>>
Syria is not our friend. Syria aids and abets the jihadis. Again, nothing particularly new here, it’s been suspected for quite some time, but it is still startling to see it said outright.
Also, we learn, the “Baby Milk Factory” still works among some:
<<<
(7) that collateral damage was not always so collateral: "Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were fighters."
>>>
Big surprise, huh?
That Syria responds to pressure from the US and has no problem violating Islamic law if its convenient to do so:
<<<
(8) That once Syria felt U.S. pressure, there was some temporary cosmetic change of heart: "The security agents said the smuggling of fighters had to stop. The jihadists' passports were taken. Some were jailed for a few days. Abu Ibrahim's jailers shaved his beard."
>>>
And, as we’ve all known, Saudi Arabia is not only a problem but one of the main problems:
<<<
(9) that supporters in Saudi Arabia always played a key role: "Our brothers in Iraq are asking for Saudis. The Saudis go with enough money to support themselves and their Iraqi brothers. A week ago, we sent a Saudi to the jihad. He went with 100,000 Saudi riyals. There was celebration amongst his brothers there!"
>>>
Great, so what does this all mean? Well, per VDH it means many of the assumptions of the left as to the root of the problem and claims as to how we’ve aggravated the problem and created more enemies, simply doesn’t stand up to close scruitiny.
<<<
More interestingly, Arab reformers, few though they are, most certainly don't blame the West for the misery of the Middle East. Instead, they confess that the Arab world itself is parasitic: "Western governments, reformers say, should question why curriculums are so weak and why Arab societies contribute nothing to the world's scientific or technological advancements."
In the words of one persecuted novelist Turki Al-Hamad, "The problem is not from the outside, the problem is from ourselves; if we don't change ourselves, nothing will change."
In the United States, we are told that we have created terrorists. Saudi liberals would beg to differ. So the theologian Al-Maleky confesses, "If Wahhabism doesn't revise itself, it will produce more terrorism."
[…]
Free-thinking Arabs refute all the premises of Western Leftists who claim that colonialism, racism, and exploitation have created terrorists, hold back Arab development, and are the backdrops to this war.
Indeed, it is far worse than that: Our own fundamentalist Left is in lockstep with Wahhabist reductionism — in its similar instinctive distrust of Western culture. Both blame the United States and excuse culpability on the part of Islamists. The more left-wing the Westerner, the more tolerant he is of right-wing Islamic extremism; the more liberal the Arab, the more likely he is to agree with conservative Westerners about the real source of Middle Eastern pathology.
>>>
Any reading of “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai and “The Crisis of Islam” by Bernard Lewis can find examples of Arab and Islamic hate against the west documented as early as the 1950s. This is nothing new. It has just finally manifested itself in action against the west. And the focus of that action, right now, is 200 miles west of Baghdad.
And while our troops fight and win, Hanson see’s a growing lack of resolve developing at home, a lack of resolve I went on a rant about yesterday:
<<<
A war that cannot be won entirely on the battlefield most certainly can be lost entirely off it — especially when an ailing Western liberal society is harder on its own democratic culture than it is on fascist Islamic fundamentalism.
So unhinged have we become that if an American policymaker calls for democracy and reform in the Middle East, then he is likely to echo the aspirations of jailed and persecuted Arab reformers. But if he says Islamic fascism is either none of our business or that we lack the wisdom or morality to pass judgment on the pathologies of a traditional tribal society, then the jihadist and the police state — and our own Western Left — approve.
The problem the administration faces is not entirely a military one: Our armed forces continue to perform heroically and selflessly under nearly impossible conditions of global scrutiny and hypercriticism. There has not been an attack on the U.S. since 9/11 — despite carnage in Madrid and over 1,000 slaughtered in Russia by various Islamic terrorists during the same period.
Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.
This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists, dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing. But the key is that the American people need to be told — honestly and daily — how and why those successes came about and must continue before it sours on the entire sorry bunch.
>>>
Not only that, the media needs to report it – honestly and daily – so the public can be aware that it is indeed happening. And that is not happening.
qando.net
sfgate.com
victorhanson.com |
