Iraq, present and future

A recent guest viewpoint expressed the belief that Iraq is forever doomed, whether we stay or leave it will fall to dictatorial, theocratic government. Perhaps that is true. It might even if we stay, it surely will if we leave. The offhanded way in which this is stated, as if it didn‘t matter, is most troubling. If that unnerving event does in fact take place, shall we just sit around our living rooms, chat about how me made the morally correct decision for a false “peace", and wait for the nuclear explosion in one of our cities? A scenario in which the Islamic Iraq's majority Sunni population cozies up to an already nuclear Pakistan, or the disenfranchised Shiite minority to a soon-to-be nuclear Iran would be almost assured in order to fill the power vacuum in the region. Or perhaps the renegade nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan (who developed Pakistan's nuclear program) would have a new home base to practice his craft for a regional strongman. The survival of the nascent Afghan democracy would become dubious at best, and it would sign the death warrants of thousands of brave Iraqi reformers who have labored for a third path between theocracy and totalitarianism. Any of these events would be a chilling development.

The notion that Iraq, because of its historically religious and tribal rule, is incompatible with democratic self-rule is demonstrably false. America itself proves this. People, mostly young people, from every nation on earth wait on long lists to immigrate to the United States. They have voted with their feet; they have chosen the life in which they make decisions for themselves rather than have them made for them. Freedom may be unfamiliar to many Iraqis, but remember that in 1776 the birthing of our own democracy was supported by only a third of the population. Another third opposed it, and the remainder waited on the sidelines to align themselves with the eventual winner. Of course the circumstances are different, but this is not entirely unlike what is happening in Iraq now.

Many have given up on the Iraq war. Just four years ago the majority of the American public (and most Congressional democrats) were in favor of the invasion. Rather than looking back at the mistakes made in the six years since September 11, we should look instead to the years ahead. Grave decisions will be made that will affect not only the current generation of Americans and the Iraqis, but future generations of both.

Americans share many bitter differences of opinion on this war. We may disagree on many points, even the war’s validity, but one thing we should all agree on is that wars do not end with “redeployment”, only victory or defeat. If our politicians and pundits do not have the fortitude to see through the former, they should be forthcoming enough to tell us they are willing to accept the latter.

Balls, Part II

Palestinians attend a demonstration against violence in Gaza April 23, 2007. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)

Don't forget the RPG on the way to the peace rally, Ahmed!

The "I can't believe they have balls that big" Caption Winner:

Palestinians attend a demonstration against violence in Gaza April 23, 2007. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)

Note to self- Don't forget to grab the automatic rifle before heading off to the demonstration against violence. Religion of Peace and all that, you know. A very blatant, naked attempt, but just an example of how the mainstream media attempts to brainwash you every day.

The guy is even wearing a Nike "Just Do It" shirt!

A Very Bad Day for America

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, wears a scarf inside Ommayad Mosque during her tour at a popular market in downtown Damascus, Syria, Tuesday April 3, 2007. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived in Syria on Tuesday, the highest-ranking American politician to visit the country since relations began to deteriorate four years ago. President George W. Bush criticized the trip, saying it sends mixed signals to President Bashar Assad. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

Yup. The person who is second in line for the presidency of the United States, wearing a "scarf."

It's a hijab. It indicates submission to Islamic sharia. The mainstream media will tell you it denotes respect. I grew up believing respect cannot be demanded, it must be earned. It also indicates submission for women, who are required to wear it in the mosque. Way to go, San Fran Nan.

My understanding of the branches of government list Congress, of which Madame Speaker is a member, under the Legislative branch. The Executive branch of government is solely responsible for foreign policy. That would make Dr. Rice, Secretary of State, as the person authorized to represent our country abroad. Can you imagine the Defeatocrats' uproar if Condi were to inject herself into domestic issues??

State sponsor of terrorism. Occupiers of Lebanon for decades. Assasins of Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri. Puppet government of the Iranian mullahs. Financial backers of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Open border access for jihiadi elements into Iraq. That Syria.

Go see "300"

I saw the movie "300" last week. I go to movies about as often as I buy a new car-once every few years whether I need it or not. I know nothing of Hollywood, I couldn't tell Johnny Depp from Johnny Appleseed. But I wanted to see this for the historical aspects, being a student of Ancient Greece. I didn't plan on playing Roger Ebert, but a letter to the editor in our local paper yesterday trashed the movie as gratuitously violent and inflammatory to Middle Easterners. (Well, what isn't?!) Anyways, this was my reply...

I suppose my review of this movie couldn't be much more antithetical to this one. Although I agree the violence was graphic and gratuitous, I would argue that the real Thermopylae was not a cakewalk either. One bit of violence was left out of the movie, that being at the real Thermopylae the victorious Xerxes had the head of King Leonidis cut off and impaled on the end of a pike as a warning to all free Greeks. War today has become so impersonal with long range weapons and video game controls we easily forget that in it's most basic form it is still mano-a-mano, tests of courage, strength and will.

The unstated message of the film is what resonated with me- the moral superiority of an army from free, autonomous city-states fighting for thier freedom and homeland against a conscripted army of imperial subjects driven forward by the lash- free men preferring to die on their feet rather than live on thier knees.

How bizzare that the present day Iranian government is protesting the movie as "Zionist propaganda" and claiming we are waging "psychological warfare"? After all, the present day Muslim government believes history began in 632 AD with the rise of Muhammad. The Persians of 2500 years ago should be seen as infidels- just as non-Muslims are today. So why the outrage? Are we supposed to belive that this movie is some kind of "warfare", but the actual kidnapping of British soldiers and threatening to "wipe off the map" the country of Israel are not? I suppose if one tries hard enough, the perpetual victim status of dysfunctional Middle Eastern governments can continue indefinately, with help from the compassionate left in this country and abroad.

HillaryCare

Many of our elected leaders spent the past week howling about the treatment of our wounded heroes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. “This is the Katrina of 2007” boomed our own Chuck Schumer, never one to let irony get in the way of politics.

Who runs Walter Reed? The government! The same people who want to be in charge of your personal health care! If the government cannot properly care for a few thousand soldiers, how efficiently can we expect them to take care of 300 million citizens?

Monopolies, especially government monopolies, breed incompetence and indifference. Remember when there was only one telephone company? All the phones were black and all the calls were expensive. Remember the old Postal Service, before private companies showed them how to “get it there overnight”? Hey, been to the DMV lately?

Innovation and improvement only exist when competition exists.

All those in favor of “HillaryCare”, your room is waiting.

Paging George Patton
The current buzzword for the Iraq war is “troop surge.” Adding more support troops will only provide more targets. Instead, we need a leader to step forward who is not afraid to change tactics and go on the offensive, rather than men who fret over making PR mistakes.

We at home must perform the awful moral calculus of war and realize that as terrible as it is, there are things that are worse; ask the dead in the concentration camps or the millions Mao butchered while the world looked away.

Considering the political constraints, is our fine military capable of producing a George Patton or a Curtis LeMay? These rough men understood that they were saving more lives than they were taking by bringing the war to a rapid close, despite their somewhat callous tactics. Do we at home have the stomach for what will be necessary to achieve victory?