Wednesday, July 27, 2005


Why Iraq?

Here's One Opinion as to Why

What is the common thread between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt?


What is it about Islam that makes it so militant and willing to kill people: men women and children -- deliberately?

The tenets of the religion of Muhammad as stated in the Koran. We are, to them, dirt under their feet.

Well, isn't there a sect of Islam that is extreme, fundamentalist and dangerous? Aren't they the cause of all the ruckus?

They, the Wahhabists, are the spear-carriers of the Muslim movement to Islamicize the world and create the NeoCaliphate.

What about OBL and AQ?

Mere spear-carriers. They are the undercover arm of the Wahabbists, and are funded by Saudi petrodollars. The Saudis want to keep us on the string for as long as possible.

So who is the real enemy?


We are fighting huge numbers of Muslims that support the idea of a neoCaliphate, and abhor the West both for who they are as well as for what they do. Most Muslims give at least tacit support to the movement, if you haven't noticed.
Then why did we attack Iraq and not another of the Islamic countries after the Afghanistan invasion?

1. Iraq is geopolitically in the heart of Islamic countries. It would be virtually impossible for the militant Muslims to abandon Iraq to democracy, since that would have grave consequences for all of the Islamic nations. They must fight there. Better to fight there than in the US, from our point of view. It is working out that way.

2. Saddam was a bad actor and he should have been removed in any event. 22 indictments were cited against him, only one of which was WMD. He coveted Saudi oil for himself, and sooner or later would try for it again.

3. It was thought that we couldn't take on the lot of them all at the same time, mainly for geopolitical and logistical reasons, plus the sorry state of depletion Clinton left the military.

The grand strategy is to divide them apart geographically and defeat them in detail as we go along, as and IF it becomes necessary. The Coalition is making progress.
Then too, a frontal attack on them all would be seen as a grab for control of the entire Middle East for its oil. This would ruffle a few feathers in Russia and China.

4. As the reality of being able to stand up for freedom and democracy by the people in Islamic countries takes hold, especially in Iraq now, and that they can force governments to relax their religious hold via Shaira law, we may never have to fight them. Progress in this direction is evident as well in Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, and even to some degree in Iran.

5. The fundamental argument is between accepting a form of secular democracy that omits Sharia law, and a forced form of tyranny by Islamics that imposes Sharia law. That is the key battle in Iraq right now as they write their Constitution, and we have seen one draft that tries to impose Shaira law again.

6. For any nation, a form of democracy is far preferable to bloody tyranny, and would tend to achieve much greater stability and peace in the entire world. There are no important instances in history of two democracies fighting each other, according to the Military Historian, Victor Davis Hanson.

This is a noble objective to strive for now, and it had to begin somewhere --
Afghanistan, and now Iraq.


Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?