Jihadi Du Jour

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Dr Walid Phares, is a leader of the March 14 movement and the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of the War of Ideas. Dr Phares was one of the architects of UNSCR 1559. He is also a Professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University and a contributing expert to FOX News. He makes the following points about the current situation and dangers in the Middle East:

The US Government is considering a new gigantic arms sale to the Saudi Kingdom, up to 20 billion dollars’ worth of complex weaponry. The proposed package includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters, and new naval vessels, as part of a US strategy to contain the rising military expansion of Iran in the region. The titanic arms deal is a major Saudi investment to shield itself from the Khomeinist menace looming at the horizon: an Iranian nuclear bomb, future Pasdaran control in Iraq, and a Hezb’allah offensive in Lebanon.

The real Iranian threat against the Saudis materializes as follows:

1. Were the US led coalition to leave Iraq abruptly, Iranian forces — via the help of their militias in Iraq — will be at the borders with the Kingdom. Throughout the Gulf, Iran’s Mullahs will be eyeing the Hijaz on the one hand and the oil rich provinces on the other hand.

2. Hezb’allah threatens the Lebanese Government, which is friendly to the Saudis. Hezb’allah, already training for subversion in Iraq, will become the main trainer of Shia radicals in the Eastern province of the Kingdom.

3. Finally Syria and Iran can send all sorts of Jihadis, including Sunnis, across Iraq’s borders, almost in a pincer movement.

In the face of such a hydra-headed advance, the Wahhabi monarchy is hurrying to arm itself with all the military technology it can get from Uncle Sam. Riyadh believes that with improved F 16s, fast boats, electronics and smarter bombs, it can withstand the forthcoming onslaught.

I believe the Saudi regime won’t. For, as the Iraq-Iran war has proved, the ideologically-rooted brutality of the Iranian regime knows no boundaries. If the US withdraws from the region without a strong pro-Western Iraq in the neighborhood, and absent of a war of ideas making progress against fundamentalism as a whole, the Saudis won’t stand a chance for survival. For the Iranians will apply their pressure directly, and will unleash more radical forces among the neo-Wahhabis against the Kingdom. The Shiite Mullahs will adroitly manipulate radical Sunnis, as they have demonstrated their ability to do in Iraq and Lebanon.

Simply throwing money at a problem, without a vision as to how to properly spend it, has never been an effective solution. More often than not, money only exacerbates the problem it is meant to solve.

So what should the US advise the Saudis to do instead of spending hugely on arms?

First, if no serious political change is performed in Arabia, the 20 billion dollars’ worth of weapons would most likely end up in the hands of some kind of an al Qaeda, ruling over not only over Riyadh, but also Mecca and Medina. That package of wealth, religious prestige and modern arms, at this point of spasms in the region, is simply too risky strategically.

But there are better ways to spend these gigantic sums in the global confrontation with Iranian threat and in defense of stability. It needs a newer vision for the region. Here are alternative plans to use the 20 billion dollars wisely but efficiently; but let’s not count on the far reaching mainstream of Western analysis at this point:

Dedicate some significant funds to support the Iranian opposition, both inside the country and overseas. Establish powerful broadcasts in Farsi, Kurdish, Arabic, Azeri and in other ethnic languages directed at the Iranian population. That alone will open a Pandora’s box inside Iran. Realists may find it hard to believe, but supporting the Iranian opposition (which is still to be identified) will pay off much better than AWACS flying over deserts.

Slate substantial sums to be spent in southern Iraq to support the anti-Khomeinist Shiia, the real shield against the forthcoming Pasdaran offensive. Such monies distributed wisely on civil society activists and on open anti-Khomeinist groups, would build a much stronger defense against Ahmedinijad’s ambitions.

Lavish funding should be granted to the Syrian liberal opposition to pressure the Assad regime into backing off from supporting Terrorism. Without a Mukhabarat regime in Damascus, the bridge between Tehran and Hezb’allah would crumble. Hence, the Syrian opposition is much worth being backed in its own home than for Saudi Arabia to fight future networks in its own home.

Allocate ample funding to the units of the Iraqi army that show the most efficiency in cracking down on terrorists, and which prove to be lawful and loyal to a strong central Government, pledging to defend its borders, particularly with regard to Iran. That would include the moderate Sunnis in the center and the Kurdish and other minority forces in the North. A strong multiethnic Iraq, projecting a balance of power with Iran’s regime, is the best option for the Peninsula.

Grant abundant aid to the Lebanese Government, the Cedars Revolution NGOs and the Lebanese Army to enable them to contain Hezb’allah on Lebanese soil. Earmark some of these grants to the Shia opposition to Nasrallah inside his own areas. When Hezb’allah is isolated by Lebanon’s population, Arab moderates around the region can sleep much better at night.

Spend real money on de-radicalization programs inside the Kingdom and across the region. With dollars spent on moderate Imams and not on the radicals, Riyadh can shake off the radical Salafi clerics, and have an impact the Jihadists’ followers. By doing so, it will prevent Jihadism from becoming (as it has already) the only other option on the inside, if the Iranian axis will put pressure on the country.

Forward meaningful sums to support the current Somali Government against the Islamic Courts and help the moderates in Eritrea and Sudan. The best defense against radicalism coming from the horn of Africa is to support the moderates in East of the continent.

Invite the US military to abandon Qatar as a regional base and to relocate to the Eastern provinces of the Kingdom, with as many billions of dollars as required to help in reinstallation and deployment facing Iran’s threat. A military attack by the Iranian regime on Saudi Arabia would then become a direct attack on the United States.

With the remaining billions, the Saudi Government would renew, remodel, and retrain its forces so that along with its allies, the US, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Gulf states, they would deter an Iranian regime, which will be defeated by its own people.

That of course, presumes radical reforms take place, quickly, in the Peninsula. But isn’t such a hope just a desert mirage?

Indeed, the points I suggested in this article, although logical in terms of counter-radicalism strategy, have very little chance of being adopted or even considered in Riyadh. The Kingdom, sadly, wants to confront the Islamic Republic only with classical military deterrence, not with a war of ideas. Which perhaps is why the region’s “friendly” regimes have preferred not to endorse “spreading democracy” as a mean to contain Terrorism. The reason is simple: Democratic culture will also open spaces in their own countries, a matter they haven’t accepted yet.

Dr. Phares is quite rights when he notes that we cannot count on the far reaching mainstream of Western analysis at this point. Why? Because of the unrealistic and failed policies of the Realpolitik practitioners at the State Department. Not only are past Realpolitik policies directly responsible for America’s current imbroglio in Iraq, but their further pursuit will only add dangerous new fuel to the existing problem while creating many more.

It is high time for a drastic change, time to bring in people who are true experts on the Levant’s mentality. People who recognize that what works in the West does not work with IslamoFascism. Not only is there a different mentality at work, the political logic is entirely different, unless we in the West are willing to engage the IslamoFascists onIslamoFasciststhey simply perceive as weakness. Unless we nurture their own opposition within, we cannot hope to stop their growing advance.

While IslamoFascism poses as a religion, it is no such thing!!! It is merely a political idea of world conquest, which adapted some trappings of religion as a convenient disguise. It is absolutely incapable of coexisting with the West, since its underlying philosophy is in direct opposition to the West. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we get rid and bury Realpolitik and its practitioners, the better the chances of stemming the advance of totalitarianism in the form of a future One World Caliphate.

But as Dr. Phares says at the end of his article: Indeed, the points I suggested in this article, although logical in terms of counter-radicalism strategy, have very little chance of being adopted or even considered in Riyadh. The Kingdom, sadly, wants to confront the Islamic Republic only with classical military deterrence, not with a war of ideas. Which perhaps is why the region’s “friendly” regimes have preferred not to endorse “spreading democracy” as a mean to contain Terrorism. The reason is simple: Democratic culture will also open spaces in their own countries, a matter they haven’t accepted yet.Will the West wake up to the looming dangers in time? Riyadh will not likely accept Dr. Phares sensible suggestions. As long as Democrats like Nanci “The most powerful woman in the world” Pelosi continue to cuddle up to the likes of Baby Assad, we are heading the wrong way down the political pike. As long as the House of Saud’s main Consigliere, James Baker, continues to hold sway on America’s foreign policy, neither will the State Department take any action to move away, even one iota, from its bankrupt path and it certainly won’t listen to Dr. Phares’ advice. Will we in the West change our stance and deal with IslamoFascism in the only decisive language they unequivocally understand?

Chaim

RELATED POSTS

Twenty Billion, Thirty Billion

Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: Ahmadinejad, American Dhimmitude, Bashir Assad, Iran, Iraq, islamofascists, James Baker, Nancy Pelosi

Socialize this!

Personalize this!

Radicalize this!

Posted by Freedom's Cost at 10:10 PM Permalink || |

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Twenty Billion, Thirty Billion

Dhimmi Watch had the following today:

The Bush Administration announces in the same breath that “over ten years” Israel will receive “$30 billion in weapons,” and that Saudi Arabia will get “$20 billion” in weapons to stave off Iran (over what time period? 10 years, like the Israelis? Or more like a year or two?). And it announces also that, furthermore, a country that is in every way hostile to us, Egypt, will receive “$13 billion” in weapons as a gift.

What shall we say about this? Israel is not only a temporary ally but a permanent ally. It is a permanent part of the West and central to the West’s history, at this point, and must be kept alive not only for our own moral sanity, but also because its disappearance, or reduction to dhimmitudinous despair and reliance on Arab Muslim willingness to allow it to survive would whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. But this weapons transfer, billed as “$30 billion,” in fact is misleading. Over ten years that amounts to $3 billion a year in weapons aid, which is only one-quarter over the amount now given, and gratefully received. (And need one point out how many advances, in aerospace technology, and in everything from unmanned aircraft to explosives-resistant vehicles that ought to have been, but were not bought, by the Pentagon for use in Iraq, are developed by the Israelis for their, and of course our, use?)

With James “F*** the Jews” Baker and his aparatchicks running the show at Foggy Bottom and Defense did anyone really think the spin would go any different? But… I digress!

Saudi Arabia, per contra, is our enemy. A permanent enemy, because it is a country whose people are suffused with the most uncompromising, violent, and malevolent — for Infidels — version of Islam. For in Saudi Arabia they take their Islam very, very seriously. Saudi Arabia is not worried about an invasion by Iran. Such fears are phony. The whole hysteria, coordinated with Egypt and Jordan, about the “Shi’a crescent” is merely designed to get the Americans to focus only on Iran (and its current accomplice, Syria) and to ignore the much larger threat, outside the local business in Iraq, that Sunni Islam poses to Infidels. It is designed to get them to ignore also that above all other states, Saudi Arabia is the world’s Muslims’ chief financier, paying for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da’wa, and the buying up of Western hirelings who in the capitals of the West — and certainly in Washington — work to do the Saudi bidding. They work to prevent intelligent understanding of the menace of Jihad and of Islam to our legal and political institutions and to our physical security.

It is absurd to think that the Saudis will master this equipment, but not absurd to think that such weaponry could fall into the hands of Arabs and other Muslims who can master some of it. In any case, the mere possession of such weapons would have to be taken into account by Israeli military planners, and will make their own task even more hellishly difficult, and they don’t deserve to have that outcome. When the United States protested about a sale of aerospace technology, developed by the Israelis, to China, Israel, at great cost to its own fledgling aerospace dreams, promptly cancelled the sale — thereby angering China and permanently damaging any hope of future sales to such a market. But Israel listened and heeded our desires. We, however, or at least this and other American administrations, have not ever heeded Israel’s pleas on the same score.

And what is also bad is the signal to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia should be read the riot act. Saudi Arabia should be told it is not “our ally,” and if it wishes to be defended, it will obviously have to rely, in the end, on us — not on weapons that could fall into hands even more malevolent than the Al-Saud (just as the weapons we sold the Shah, that “pillar of stability” in the Persian Gulf, fell into the clutches of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Thus if these weapons are delivered, we would have to be ready to intervene in order to make sure those weapons were not seized, or transferred, to others. Saudi Arabia was a loyal supporter of the Taliban (and one of only two countries to recognize the Taliban government, besides Pakistan). Saudi Arabia must be forced to stop funding mosques and madrasas, stop funding the hate literature against Infidels that have been found in those mosques and those madrasas, stop funding those campaigns of Da’wa that target prisoners, that target all the psychically and economically marginal.

The Saudis do not now do, and never have done, the United States any favors. We buy their oil at the market price. They have fooled successive American policymakers, who wanted to be fooled. They were helped along in being fooled by so many who, directly or indirectly, at the time or soon after, have been paid off by the Saudis, the government, or its institutions, or rich individuals.

And as long as America’s enemy Number 1, James “F*** the Jews” Baker, continues to both have powerful friends here and continues as the Royal House of Saud’s Consigliere, we will continue to be fooled over and over and over… until the Saudis have attained their goal!

The way to “protect” the Al-Saud and the oilfields is quite different. It is to sell Saudi Arabia an insurance policy. We will guarantee the safety of the rulers and of the oil. It will cost: let’s say $50-100 billion annually. Too much, you say? Well, since Saudi Arabia takes in about one billion dollars a day, and since the rich Saudis have invested a lot overseas, have perhaps a trillion or more socked away, they can certainly afford $50-$100 billion. Okay, how about a little souk-haggling, in that case? Let’s give them a deal — $75 billion a year. How’s that? As long as you agree with the concept, we can at a later date decide just how much we intend to recoup, for the Iraq calamity and squandering of $880 billion, from the fabulous rich Saudis.

As long as James “F*** the Jews” Baker, continues hobnobbing with the powerful here, while continuing as Consigliere for the Royal House of Saud without needing to register as a foreign agent, Saudi Arabia will continue to thumb its nose at us! And as long as that does continues to happen, the half hearted and selective pursuit of the “War on Terror” will merely be little more than a bumper-sticker, albeit a very bloody one.

And what about Egypt? Can it seriously be maintained that Egypt needs those weapons because the army of Shi’a Iran may march right across northern Iraq, and Jordan, and Israel, and march right into Egypt? Really? Or is it possible that Egypt needs those weapons because Iranian troops will be coming up from the Sudan? Or that somehow the Sunnis of Egypt, who are deeply distrustful and intensely dislike the Iranian Shi’a for being non-Arabs and for being Shi’a, would somehow be converted by Shi’a missionaries? And if that were the case, why would giving Egypt the most advanced weaponry help in stopping those missionary efforts?

Egypt has fought four major wars with Israel, and has been responsible for nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks in the period 1949-1956 on Israel. It has been, and remains, the most dangerous neighbor Israel has. Egypt does not go to war not because its people have reconciled themselves to Israel’s existence — if anything, they have become since the Sinai handover even more virulent in their officially-sanctioned and officially-promoted hatred of Israel and Zionists and “Jews.” Yet the Administration thinks that giving weapons to Egypt, a country whose poor will not benefit one whit from the airplanes and missiles Egypt will receive, will somehow be accepted by the American people and by Congress, that we will all be unable to see right through this.

The lumped announcement of the one legitimate arms delivery planned — that to our ally and friend Israel — at the same time, in the same breath, with the announcement of the gift of advanced weaponry to Israel’s constant threat Egypt, and the sale of advanced weaponry to the funder of the worldwide Jihad, Saudi Arabia, shows an Administration that is terminally exhausted. It cannot think straight about Islam. It cannot begin to start to think straight about the dangers it is creating for an ally, and for the larger Infidel world. It can’t begin to get a grip and think in terms of the Camp of Infidels and the Camp of Islam, and how to do whatever it takes to weaken the latter and strengthen the former.

Instead, it has swallowed the Sunni Arab line about the need for countering the Shi’a threat (as if there were not, for Infidels, a greater Sunni threat), which means the threat to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and to Bahrain, and among the Shi’a agitating in Lebanon, or those Shi’a minorities in Yemen and Kuwait. And of course they also mean the threat in Iraq, if the Shi’a are permitted to keep their new gains, and the Sunnis to be forced to accept the new order. That is why, just as the Shi’a exiles were the ones who helped inveigle the Bush Administration to go into Iraq, it is now the turn of the Sunnis, to inveigle us — against our own best interests — to stay.

The Administration keeps amazing us with its ignorance and inability to see the whole picture.

And in its list of recipients of the arms, the Bush Administration puts one in mind of the scene in a Woody Allen film, in which he is in at a kiosk in New York telling the newsdealer that “I’d like a copy of The Times Literary Supplement, and The New York Review Books, and The Hudson Review and also Partisan Review and, oh, could you just throw in a copy of Slut.”

Let’s face it, gentle reader, as much as we desperately need oil for our economy to function the Saudis need us at least as much! Who else will defend them from the Iranians? Who can replace us as their main oil customer? If instead of pursuing the failed diktats of James “F*** the Jews” Baker and his boys’ unrealistic Realpolitik, if we were truly serious about the war on terror, if it meant more than a mere slogan, or bumper-sticker, then perhaps we should stop paying the dhimmi’s jyzia tax and stand up to our rightful place! Saudi Arabia certainly has every reason to believe that James “F*** the Jews” Baker is well worth his weight in oil… at least thirty pieces of silver’s worth (plus an allowance for 2000 years of inflation)! But why must we, go along with this involuntary taxation. Perhaps the time has come to tell James “F*** the Jews” Baker and his lapdogs at Foggy Bottom and Defense that it’s time for them to move to Saudi Arabia, where they can happily don kefiyas or hijabs… far away from us!

Publish Post
(from: Cox & Forkum)

Chaim

Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: American Dhimmitude, Iraq, Israel, James Baker, Jizya tax, Saudi Arabia

Socialize this!

Personalize this!

Radicalize this!

Posted by Freedom's Cost at 11:43 PM Permalink || |

Required Reading for Defeatocrats

Yesterday, Kuwaits’s Arab Times, featured the following opinion by Ahmed Al-Jarallah, the paper’s Editor-in-Chief. For those who advocate we should leave Iraq immediately, for those who claim that cutting and running, before finishing the job, is in the world’s best interest the following written by an Arab newspaper editor, should give them cause to ponder:

Arabs fear a job half done

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times

WHEN the United States sent its troops to the region, it had the support of logic. However, America currently finds itself in a crisis for sending its military forces to the land of lost opportunities. At least these are the theories being taught at Brookings and Hoover Institutes, from where several of the neo-conservative strategy experts graduated. This is why the US administration was aware of all the historic events and the nature of the changes in the region since the occupation of Palestine, weakening of the ties of European countries with Arabs and the birth of new ties with the US, effect of the Cold War on some Arab regimes, the era of mutiny, and revolution. Even some Arab leaders don’t know anything about these issues. All the detailed studies on these issues lead us to one important conclusion: the head of the snake is no longer al-Qaeda. Currently it is Iran, which wants to turn the region into a commonwealth that belongs to it.

Under such circumstances naturally the United States wants more information to investigate the new developments. This is why the US Secretary of State, Defense Secretary and several members of the US Congress are visiting the region frequently. This makes us wonder whether the US has yet to complete its diagnosis of the problem and whether it is ready to make a move to achieve its objective.

The first step the United States has to take is make an effort to reassure Arabs, especially its allies who are afraid they will be left alone if the US decides to end its campaign and withdraw its troops from the region. Arabs are afraid because they will be in direct confrontation with people whose minds are rigid and dream about victory in the “Mother of all Battles.”

Arabs are afraid because Saddam continued to torture Iraqis even after the liberation of Kuwait as the Americans didn’t end his regime before ending their military campaign. Moreover Somali militias went out of control as their operations were not ended for good and the Lebanese lived their worst nightmare in the mid Eighties when American and multi national troops left them alone. It is no wonder Arabs are afraid of facing similar nightmares. No one can deny the fact that the US administration committed some mistakes in Iraq. But such mistakes are natural and can be considered small compared to the achievement of liberating Iraq, which is tasting freedom and democracy after 35 years of suppression.

The first Gulf War ended without taking down Saddam Hussein. Thanks for this this is due entirely to traitor par excellence, James Baker, who because of his saving Hussein’s head twice is directly responsible for the current Iraq War and the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers… Were it not for his powerful friends he should be tried as a war criminal!). The result of leaving Saddam in place was a massacre of Shiites (who were at the time, very sympathetic to the Americans whom they viewed as would be liberators) and Kurds.

And yes, folks there have been grievous mistakes made in Iraq, whether by ineffective military commanders, whether by the civilians representing American administration. On the other hand, there is now a military commander, General Patreus, who rightly sized up the situation on the ground and is slowly but steadily producing the desired results. The possibility of successful results seem to scare to death the “cut and run” party in Congress! As Charles Krauthammer wrote, on this past July 13th:

“The key to turning [Anbar] around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run.”

– The New York Times, July 8

Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq’s territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times’s John Burns calls an ” astonishing success,” the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.

It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar.

The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province — just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar — where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades has turned against al-Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces.

We don’t yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure. But what cannot be said — although it is now heard daily in Washington — is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus’s new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug.

Even some Republicans have been so cowered by their Democrat colleagues they are turning against what works. It isn’t just the Reid, Pelosi and Co. crowd, some Republicans are themselves Defeatocrats who refuse to consider the facts on the ground and are looking forward to defeat.

[…]A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.

Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus’s plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.

That’s the logic of the wobbly Republicans’ position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government’s inability to meet the required political “benchmarks.” As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.

But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al-Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial levels with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.

The costs are heartbreakingly high — increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.

In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy — al-Qaeda — that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost

So why are Defeatocrats so deathly afraid of letting General Patreus show us if indeed he’s capable of finishing the job he started? The following will present us with the real reason for to their infatuation with defeat (H/T: Yid with Lid)

The Good News is Bad News It’s tough being a member of Congress. Even if you’re in the majority, as is Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said “progress is being made” by U.S. military forces in Iraq; “We are on the offensive and we have the momentum,” he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and she walked out.

There was “only so much” she could take, she explained, so she “had to leave the room…after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.” She said she was worried, too, that General Keane’s remarks “will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country.” Hey, that could happen!

What the good Representative from Kansas is so upset about, is not that it might “further divide this country,” what she’s really afraid of is that any evidence that this administration’s plans may have a chance of success might result in the Defeatocrats being dumped into the trashbin of American Congressional history by the very voters that brought them into power. Defeatocrats, like Representative Boyda, have shown themselves as caring little or nothing about the country as a whole. Instead they have focused on a very narrow but loud constituency whose understanding of events betrays their sheep like mentality, their total ignorance of current and historical events… and extreme mental laziness to boot. If General Patreus is allowed to succeed, Boyda and her cohorts are in for a heap of political trouble!

So, coming back to Ahmed Al-Jarallah’s opinion piece:

As a society, which suffered sectarian disputes, Iraq needed rehabilitation. If the United States were to withdraw its troops now, Iraq will suffer even more and create a fertile environment for the birth of thousands of clones of Saddam. We know some Iraqis want the Americans get out of their country. But we also know a huge segment of the Iraqi society wants the US troops to stay because they are scared of being left alone. The United States is aware that Iraq is the cornerstone of the Middle East which links three continents. What America needs at the moment is an experienced surgeon who can handle this historic operation in the Middle East by removing the tumor, which is the cause of all troubles.

Experienced surgeons usually don’t negotiate when it comes to dangerous tumors which are a risk to the stability, security and economic future of this vital region.

Arabs know Arabs best, they share the culture, the hopes and the ideals. It would behoove the Defeatocrats in both parties to heed the words of those Arabs who have consistently shown they share America’s ideas and values of freedom and lasting peace by destroying the enemy of both, through swift, unavoidably surgically precise actions. To cut and run may bring a few weeks of calm at best, but whether those few weeks come to fruition or not, the result of cutting and running will be the emboldening of terrorism, the betrayal of and the subsequent distrust by those we set out to help. More importantly and definitely worse, it will bring terrorism back to our very own shores!

(Cartoon by Chuck Asay as it appeared on August 1, 2007
at Townhall.com)