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.
America isn’t just getting tired of the Middle East, the people are understanding just what the average Muslim is and what their Qur’an is telling them and the American people are getting tired of Muslims. The average American on the street knows that before they came to our country we lived in relative peace and nobody was threatening to nuke us the light is on. The average American is sick of the pandering to their every idiotic whim and sick of hearing our leader call them a highjacked religion or a religion at all.
Bottom line, 9/11 was an act of war against our country by the Middle East and Muslims, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor they were put in detention camps in this country, the average Joe is asking now why where Muslims allowed to dance in our streets, an open sign of treason and hate and even offered protection? Why were they not all carried off and incarcerated? We the people know who and what CAIR is and another attack on this country will bring any and all Middle Easteners in our country to their knees with the American peoples boot to their heads.
Enough is enough. Stop the insanity is what we want and we want it NOW.
Our own fundamentalist Left is in lockstep with Wahhabist reductionism
Bill Clinton walking along holding hands with the ruler of that reductionist Wahhabi state...uh, wait one second.
Victor David Hanson makes good points, but has emphathised the wrong conclusion. Yes the left is advocating a course that will assist the totalitarian Wahhabist dictators, but the Republicans hold power and the left does not. The Republicans are fighting the war in a way such a way that defeat is a real possibility. To win this war is the responsibility of the politcal leadership of the USA.
The Republicans (not a left wing party for those who were wondering) are fighting the war in Iraq. The enemy resides safely in Syria and more importantly Saudi Arabia. As the enemy are in no danger of losing this war they are invincible, all they have to do is keep fighting and they will win.
Such is the state of Saudi politics that it cannot stop funding jihadists until it is made to. If not made to stop by American action, it shall stop funding in 2080 when the oil runs out.
To win this war is the responsibility of the politcal leadership of the USA.
The Republicans (not a left wing party for those who were wondering) are fighting the war in Iraq.
And there it is in a nutshell. The left has decided that since it didn’t get its way, not only will it not participate, but it will willfully work against the administration in the prosecution of the war.
It isn’t the political leadership of the Republicans who’ve abdicated their responsibility, its the political leadership of the left.
Want to tear the administration a new one on domestic policy? Go for it. But when engaged in a war, one the leadership of the left voted for, both sides should accept the resultant responsiblity and pull together. There are plenty of things to fight about on the domestic front, but once committed to a foreign policy event that the country, through its leadership (on both sides) chose to engage itself, that leadership must see to finishing the job.
Real leaders would see that and eschew the politics for the cause. They’d put the country first. Politicians, who are more keen on a political advantage than the country, will act as the leadership of the left is now acting about Iraq.
I would back Bush 100% if he was fighting the WoT. He is not. He is fighting the Iraq War.
Unfortunately for Bush the terrorists are fighting a war against America. They have not allowed America an easy victory in Iraq. As long as they remain invincible, they will fight forever.
They assume that America will not fight the Iraq War forever.
And there it is in a nutshell. The left has decided that since it didn’t get its way, not only will it not participate, but it will willfully work against the administration in the prosecution of the war.
They appear to be correct.
After America retreats please feel free to blame the left if you want to. I am sure that at DU they will blame Bush. The terrorists or whatever will not care, it will be a great victory for them.
The choice for the Republicans is to win in Iraq or get out and somehow blame the war on Bush or Cheney or Rumsfield.
I would back Bush 100% if he was fighting the WoT. He is not. He is fighting the Iraq War.
That sort of says it all. To those who understand the strategic importance of Iraq in the War on Terrorism, Iraq is just one theater in a long war. But the left doesn’t see it as part of the War on Terrorism, rather its own separate war that has nothing to do with terrorism. Just because the left sees it that way doesn’t make it so, however.
If America could sustain a long war, then that would be okay. But the Democratic Party see a long war as a sign of Republican weakness and are attacking this weakness. There is growing support in America for an exit timetable. Sooner or later the Republicans are going to have to show big time results in Iraq or timetable a withdrawl.
How will the Iraq War reach a conclusion anytime soon?
I feel that the existing strategy of attacking insurgents as they enter Iraq will prove as unsuccessful as the strategy of attacking communists as they entered South Vietnam proved to be 30 years ago. Then American strategy made North Vietnam invincible, today American strategy makes the supporters of terrorism invincible.