1. Just about everything written above is ass-backwards.

   The killing being done in Iraq is not in the name of liberation or freedom; the killers are not average Iraqis trying to expel occupiers, but rather terrorists trying to take over and extinguish the freedom the U.S. has provided and the vast majority of Iraqis are embracing.

   Nearly the entire country has rallied round the elected government in Baghdad and have turned on the Islamist butchers in a wholesale rejection of their twisted ideology. al-Queda and its ilk have been nearly eradicated in the country causing a precipitous drop in violence and in casualties. Yet you write off the drop in violence as a clever strategy unlike anything they've ever employed before? Give me a break.

   Once again the U.S. is depicted as the bad guy and the Islamic thugs in the Middle East are freedom fighters. Good grief we just can't win, can we?

   Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 9, 2008

2. Dear Mr Osonitsch,

   Could there be just one little flaw in your argument? Perhaps the sort of ‘freedom’ depicted in Debbie Schlussel’s excellent article about “Sex and the City” is not quite the ‘freedom’ the Iraqis aspire to. They are, after all, mostly Muslim!

   Secular depravity is anathema to them. Likewise, the Koran calls on all Muslims to defend Muslim land. Why would you think that Iraqi Muslims would reject the Word of Allah Himself in order to embrace a “Sex and the City” style ‘secular freedom’?

   Muslims I know, and have known, all aspire to a freedom to submit to the Will of Allah – that is what Islam means – “submission”.

   But who knows, perhaps McCain has some special insight into the Islamic mind that even Muslims don’t know is there!

   Time will tell, I expect. But in the meantime, many brave young men and women will be called upon to sacrifice their lives. I just hope that I am wrong, and that their sacrifice will be worth it!

   Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

   Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 9, 2008

3. Mr. McMillan,

   Your response above is a non-sequitar and a complete dodge. Nobody is strapping on suicide vests in Iraq because Sarah Jessica Parker is a skank. Or are you suggesting US troops in Iraq are depraved? And not all Muslims in Iraq or elsewhere are Koran-thumping fundamentalists.

   The killing being done in Iraq is not a broad-based liberation movement; it is a campaign of slaughter carried out by a small number of mostly foreign-born Islamic terrorists.

   Let's not lose sight of who are the good and bad guys.

   Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 9, 2008

4. Most of the world is about 800 years ahead of the Middle East and fundamentalist Islam, so the author has a point.

   But what is taking place is to expedite reform and advance nations to the point where their sensibilities are as modern as the weapons they wield or are likely to wield. That could take 100 years, for all I know.

   It is one thing for backward thinking or primitive people to live in a remote jungle, it is another when they have vast oil supplies (lots of money) and access to wmd - especially considering some may not appreciate that such weapons are better left unused.

   Comment by nick adams | June 9, 2008

5. "…if they, the Iraqis, ceased and desisted in their aspirations to be free … if only they would refrain from fighting for their freedom…"

   Where were these hearts yearning to be free when Saddam was in charge?

   Comment by sedonaman | June 9, 2008

6. sedonaman,
   I think what Mr. McMillan is saying is they are fighting for the freedom to impose a oppressive system. His loose play with the word "freedom" asside, the question is why are so few willing to fight for McMillan's idea "freedom?"

   Had so few been inspired to take up arms in early America, we'd still be answering to England.

   Why Mr. McMillan attaches importance to a fundamentalist minority (bolstered by radicals from other lands) fighting for its "interests" and equates it to a country struggling for freedom is not clear.

   I talk to a lot of people coming back from Iraq, and they say most Iraqis report they are scared to death of the "freedom" fighters and what will happen if they succeed. They may not think it is ideal that U.S. and other foreign troops are on their soil, but they are not affraid of them, which says a lot about who Iraqis believe the good guys and the bad guys are.

   Hitler battled hard for the "freedom" to impose his will on the world. We battled Hitler to ensure the world would be free of Hitler. Similarly we battle to ensure Iraqis are free from the freedom fighters who have no intention of permitting freedom in any shape or form.

   Comment by nick adams | June 9, 2008

7. "Could there be just one little flaw in your argument? Perhaps the sort of ‘freedom’ depicted in Debbie Schlussel’s excellent article about “Sex and the City” is not quite the ‘freedom’ the Iraqis aspire to. They are, after all, mostly Muslim!"

   As you have correctly pointed out on numerous occasions, we have setup a Muslim government in Iraq. With that in mind, what "freedom" is it that the Muslim population of Iraq has lost that they are now ostensibly fighting to restore? Iraqi's do not possess the "Sex and the City"-type freedom that you describe. Their government has been established with Islam as the state religion and built around Islamic principles of law. Iraqi's are very much free to oppress women, children and homosexuals, suppress free speech and worship Allah - in fact, they are more free to do those things now than they were under the rule of Saddam Hussein. So your argument is utterly illogical - negated in fact by your own previous statements on the current state of affairs in the Iraqi government. If the "freedom fighter" revolutionaries in Iraq (which as others have pointed out, are largely foreign anyway) were only interested in the pure pursuit of Islam, they should be worshiping the US - not expelling us as secular interlopers.

   Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 9, 2008

8. I would have thought it obvious from the context of my article that when I talk about Iraqis fighting for their freedom I am doing so from the Iraqi perspective. I doubt very much that those Iraqis fighting Coalition Forces would claim that they are fighting for oppression.

   Now that US intentions of permanent bases have been disclosed, what we see are demonstrations across Iraq against the Iraqi government’s position.

   The majority of the Iraqi Legislative has also insisted that all US forces must leave before any discussions take place about permanent US bases.

   A letter to the US Congress, signed by over half of the Iraqi representatives, says this: "The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq."

   That sounds like the ‘freed’ Iraqis exercising the ‘freedom’ we bestowed on them.

   And here is another Iraqi legislator, Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shia political party, testifying to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee: "I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems." He also said that he wanted US forces out of Iraq as soon as possible.

   On the other side, the Sunni side, Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, founder of the National Dialogue Council, said US forces should leave Iraq before any discussions take place on any long-term security deal. "We prefer to delay until there is a new administration in the United States." Sounds somewhat like what I say in the article!

   Then there is Al Maliki’s visit to Iran over the week-end.

   Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told al-Maliki that "the most fundamental problem of Iraq is the presence of foreign forces in that country." Iran has made it clear that it will oppose any continued US presence in Iraq after December 2008 (when the UN Mandate expires).

   We can, of course, run around deluding ourselves that the majority of Iraqis and Muslims welcome the presence of US and British troops in Iraq, and regard them as liberators, but we will do so at our cost, and I expect it will be a terrible cost.

   The evidence from the mouths of the majority of Iraqis is clear – they regard the US and the Coalition as occupiers. However we try to finesse that fact with the legal niceties of definitions, it remains a fact.

   And it is also clear from what comes out of Iraq, Iran, and other countries, that there is certainly a ‘wait and see’ strategy going on here. Discounting the possibility that the lull in violence may reflect that fact is again delusion.

   As I said in the article, it is clear that the Iraqis simply don’t want the brand of ‘freedom’ we decided they should have. They want the type of freedom prescribed by the Koran. And that, Patrick (Comment 7), is precisely what I have been saying for years. Iraq, as I have pointed out, now has a Constitution subject to the strictures of Islam - and that means no foreign presence in Iraq. It also obligates all Muslims to bring that about. And we gave this 'freedom' to them!

   Joseph BH McMillan http://www.fereedomvrights.com

   Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 10, 2008

9. Patrick, on reflection, perhaps I should expand briefly of my response to your Comment 7, particularly in the context of my Comment 2 about ‘secular freedom’.

   The point is that there seems to be a dangerous disconnect between the way the Iraqi Constitution is seen in the West, and the way it is seen by Iraqis, especially Muslims.

   The Iraqi Constitution makes a lot of virtuous noise about “Rights and Freedoms” – Chapter Two. For example, Article 15 provides for the rights to life, security and freedom. Article 36 even provides for Freedom of opinion, expression, press etc.

   But since the entire Constitution is subordinated to Islam, all these “Rights and Freedoms” have to be read in that context. So if we want to find out what say constitutes women’s rights, we need to look to the Koran.

   The same applies to freedom of opinion, expression etc.

   And that is where the disconnect comes in. Because there appears in the Iraqi Constitution verbiage that we recognize, most seem to assume that it means the same as the concepts we recognize in the West.

   So there is clearly language in the Iraqi Constitution that would justify the sort of ‘secular depravity’ I refer to at Comment 2, if we attach to it a Western secular interpretation. But once that language is read in the context of Islam, and especially the Koran, it acquires a quite different meaning.

   So whereas many in the West now think that the ‘liberated’ Iraq permits such ‘freedoms’, the Iraqis don’t. The same applies to a continued military presence. Although the Iraqi government has ostensible ‘authority’ to enter into such ‘agreements’, read in the context of Islam, and the Koran, such an agreement would breach the Constitution, and indeed require Iraqi Muslims (and indeed all Muslims) to fight their own government.

   That is the delusion that now seems to inform current policy, and the policies of both Obama and McCain.

   And that too is the delusion of speaking about Iraq having been ‘liberated’, and the Iraqis being ‘free’.

   We and the Iraqis have precisely the reverse understanding of those concepts. And such a fundamental disconnect can only bode badly for the future.

   Finally, regarding Comment 3 - Mr Osonitsch, the likes of "sex and the City", and other instances of what Muslims regard as Western depravity, are precisely why the Islamists strap bombs to their waists, and fly airliners into buildings. It offends Allah. Why do you think they do it?

   Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

   Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 10, 2008

10. Mr. McMillan,

    You've once again set up a straw-man to argue against. The fact that the average Iraqi doesn't want foreign troops on their soil indefinitely is manifest and completely understandable. However, it is not they who are detonating suicide vests in crowded markets or killing recruits standing in line to join the Iraqi military. That would be the foreign al-Queda fighters and the Iranian-sponsored Shia thugs, not your average citizen.

    And John McCain stating that the US will leave when the enemy stops killing our servicemen is the most sensible thing imaginible: if our forces are no longer being attacked, that means the enemy has either capitulated or has been eradicated. This is the definition of complete victory, the only exit strategy we've ever employed in this war.

    Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 10, 2008

11. "So there is clearly language in the Iraqi Constitution that would justify the sort of ‘secular depravity’ I refer to at Comment 2, if we attach to it a Western secular interpretation. But once that language is read in the context of Islam, and especially the Koran, it acquires a quite different meaning."

    That was precisely my point. You are blaming Iraqi violence on the majority Iraqi population backlashing against the "Westernization" of their country and secularization of their Muslim values. However, as you have just said, "once that language is read in the context of Islam, and especially the Koran, it acquires a quite different meaning.". Iraq has not been "Westernized", Iraqis are not "free", they are very much still a Muslim culture - in fact an institutionally Muslim culture. I'm assuming you would agree with that - it is precisely the argument that you've laid out previously on this website and in your comments in this discussion. Given that, your argument is incongruent with your conclusion. If Iraq is not "Westernized", if Iraqis are not "free" in the secular sense that we understand "freedom", if they are an institutionally Muslim state, then it is difficult to understand the argument that they are backlashing against Westernization, secular freedom and secularization. To say that they want to drive America out of Iraq because they are Islamic and hate Westerners is correct, but that was only part of your argument.

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 10, 2008

12. Dear Mr Osonitsch (and Patrick - below),

    It seems you endorse the ‘Leftist’ interpretation of McCain’s remarks – that is, that he will continue the war for a hundred years, or more, it that is what it takes to stop the killing of US servicemen and servicewomen. And what then? Another few hundred years of ‘peaceful’ and ‘harmonious’ occupation?

    It seems that the facts are of little interest to your assessment, like McCain. The demonstrations by Iraqi citizens; the Iraqi representatives telling us we must go; and even Bush’s own Intelligence Advisors telling us that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and now pose a real threat to the West and the United States (My article Obama v McCain: The end of the Republican Party as a Home for Conservatives). McConnell (the DNI) said precisely that. The sub context is obvious - they have done so while we have been diverted in Iraq.

    Since then, Michael Hayden, the CIA Chief, has said precisely the same thing before Congress, and on Meet the Press.

    But McCain, like a dog with a bone, will chew away on Iraq for ‘as long as it takes to achieve success’.

    We have already conceded in Iraq by endorsing an Islamic Constitution.

    So rather you than me to explain to those brave young men and women sacrificing their lives on an almost daily basis (and their families), that the threat is really from some “straw-man” – by which I take you to mean insignificant or inconsequential.

    Patrick, I am finding it difficult to follow your logic (Comment 11).

    It seems clear from what I have said that the “backlash” against us is due to the disconnect between what we see the Iraqi Constitution as providing, and what the Iraqis see.

    We seem to take the view that their Constitution provides a secular style democracy and are going about imposing that, whereas the Iraqis see the reverse. Ironically, they now seem to be fighting against us to preserve what we ‘gifted’ them in their Constitution.

    I don't know that I can really make it much clearer than that.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 10, 2008

13. I don't think I got an answer to my question.

    Comment by sedonaman | June 10, 2008

14. Mr. McMillan,
    As a student of history, you have to appreciate the tumult that marks change. Remember, the key phrase here is McCain's 100 years. A country based on Islamic law we can get along with the first couple dozen of those 100 years is a start.

    You seem to be unwilling to experience the bumps and bruises that are a part of any difficult task and a prerequisite for change. Is it our brand of change?

    Hell yes, but it also is a brand much of the world (in this age of long-range missles) endorses despite all the belly aching over this war. If I may be so bold, it also is a proven brand.

    It is a reality that some Iraqi's are going to come kicking and screaming. You pay them mind here, but the question is can anyone afford to do that in an age where primitive ideologies can command modern armies and nuclear weapons? Must we have a massive, deadly incident to point out how trivial concerns like yours are?

    This isn't 1808, it is 2008. There is much more at stake, which requires judicious doses of old-fashioned hegomny from someone. I suggest that we take our lumps in the arena of world and Iraqi opinion and be that someone. Our track record isn't bad: Japan, Germany, England, France, Eastern Europe, and our own South are living testaments.

    You just can't go wrong with freedom (real freedom), which is why we historically ignore those who do not come to it quickly and fight those opposed to it.

    Will the Iraqis change overnight? Hell no, but by creating the "opportunity" the wheels are in motion, and it is not hard to see Iraq in the near future becoming something more resembling Turkey than Iran.

    Time will tell, but one thing is clear: the opportunity for change wouldn't be here if Saddam were still running things, the country doomed to be run by one or both of his rotten sons after he died of old age in 2025. Likewise, a presence in the post Saddam country helps ensure there will not be another Saddam and that Iraq will not become another Iran.

    To quote our supreme leader, "This will be a long and difficult struggle." What part about long don't you understand? What part about difficult don't you understand?

    It appears that your commentary's primary value is pointing out the obviousness of Bush's statement.

    We've made some difficult decisions in the past, all based on a belief in the rightness of our cause (entering WWII, war against our own countrymen, and yes, even our part in bringing about what is Turkey today).

    In each of those cases we ruffled somebody's feathers and occupied some piece of turf and torqued off the local population. How is Iraq historically different?

    You appear to be making a case for yeilding in the face of difficulty (no hands-on shepparding after all that has been invested and lost in this cause). And yeilding will lead to what, exactly?

    That's an important question, because the answer to it also becomes the de facto goal of our yielding policy?

    Comment by nick adams | June 10, 2008

15. The only leftism being displayed here is yours, McMillan and to boot, you've drawn all the wrong conclusions from the wrong data.

    Does the average Iraqi citizen want the US to occupy Iraq indefinitely? And does the US want to maintain a large, expensive presence there indefinitely? No, neither the US nor the Iraqi people want us to stay very long.

    Having said that, are these same proud, independence-minded Iraqi citizens killing US troops or Iraqi government forces to expel the US from the country? No, those attacks are being carried out by the terrorists we've gone there to kill (and who've flocked there to be killed). The US and Iraq are fighting side-by-side against a common enemy whose defeat will facilitate a universally desired US withdrawl. The average Iraqi citizen wants us to be there exactly as long as we want to stay: until the Iraqi government is able to stand on its own.

    How can you get things absolutely ass-backwards every time?

    Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 10, 2008

16. Dear Mr Adams,

    I think your comparison to Turkey is most appropriate. The Turkish Constitution is secular. That is why the Turkish Supreme Court overturned the lifting of the ban on headscarves in Turkish Universities only last week (was it), and why a prosecutor is bringing a case to remove the present government on the basis that it has an Islamic agenda to overturn the Turkish Constitution.

    Now, if we had in fact instituted (or persuaded the Iraqis to adopt) a Turkish style Constitution, I would agree with your assessment.

    But our current position in Iraq could be better likened to liberating France, then instituting a Nazi regime.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 10, 2008

17. Mr. McMillan
    It would have been nice if a secular system were in place now, but you and I differ in that you hear the fat lady singing. I'll even grant you as much, but I think there's an even fatter lady in the wings.

    It ain't over. The folks in that part of the world have a lot of catchin' up to do. Sometimes it seems like they just got chipped out of a glacier.

    Comment by nick adams | June 10, 2008

18. 9. …"instances of what Muslims regard as Western depravity are precisly why the Islamists strap bombs to their waists and fly airliners into buildings. It offends Allah. Why do you think they do it?"

    Muslims may well find a lot of western culture to be depraved, and they may believe it offends Allah. But those that strap bombs to their waists because do so because they are evil. And they are evil in a way that is autonomous and independent of evils in the west.

    Comment by felix | June 10, 2008

19. Dear Mr Adams,

    Was it Winston Churchill who said “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”

    Perhaps we are still on the “everything else” part at the moment. But I have no doubt that America will eventually do the right thing. I just hope that it doesn’t take a monumental catastrophe for the “right thing” part to get under way.

    I think you read me wrong - I don’t think the fat lady has even started to sing. In fact, I don’t think the show has even started.

    I do appreciate your thoughts and Comments.

    Sedonaman, I note that I neglected to address your question. I thought that Saddam was executed because he massacred a load of villagers after an assassination attempt. I also thought that he had gassed Kurds because they challenged his rule. Likewise, I thought that the uprising in the South of Iraq after the first Gulf War was the Iraqi’s seeking to be rid of him. Unless I am wrong, I think there was at least one assassination attempt on one of his obnoxious sons. There are probably many more examples, I expect.

    But also, Iraq still had a Constitution subject to Islam under Saddam, even though Saddam simply paid lip-service to it.

    Felix, I agree generally with what you say - the evil finds its origins in Islam, and is being directed at us. And it is being directed at us because of how we are perceived in both the Koran, and in the Islamic world.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 11, 2008

20. A few points:

    1) We did not, whatever the paleo-goofballs say, invade Iraq in 2003 to institute our form of government there. We did it for a host of reasons, but 3 prominent ones: to depose the tyrant; forestall his WMD development; help facilitate the emergence of a free and friendly government there; and take the fight against the jihadists into the heart of the Middle East. We have succeeded in all these points. So far.

    2) No matter what Mr. McMillan says, the jihadists are not flying airplanes into buildings because of "Sex and the City" or any other form of Western depravity. I am not a historian but by my reasoning HBO did not exist in the seventh century when the concept of jihad and the dar-al Islam was born and coordinated Muslim attacks on us began.

    Stop blaming us for jihad.

    Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 11, 2008

21. Mr Osonitsch, no one is blaming us for provoking the Islamic attacks. From what I can gauge, everyone who has contributed to the debate is saying the opposite.

    You are absolutely right, Islam has hated us from its inception (that is, Jews and Christians), and has waged war against us. It is just that their reasons for doing so vary. This time it is Israel, and our depravity (both sexually, and for supporting Israel).

    I can’t understand why you think that pointing out their excuses for attacking us somehow endorses those excuses. It seems to me to demonstrate the inherent lack of humanity in Islam itself that those professing to act in the name of Allah are willing to massacre innocent people because of the depravity of some (and I am not thus suggesting that they should concentrate their killing on those who indulge in depravity!).

    The whole point of the article is to demonstrate that we cannot mix oil and water and get a refreshing and healthy drink out of the concoction. I’m sorry that you missed the point.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 11, 2008

22. Mr. McMillan,

    You can dissemble all you want but cannot put the genie back in the bottle. In your original article and most of your comments you have blamed the U.S. for attacks on our homeland and our troops, and you've mocked John McCain for stating the obvious (as I pointed out above in comment #10.)

    The reasons for their (jihadists) attacks on us is not our depravity, the existance of Israel, or any other reason. Nor does the rationale for jihad vary one iota. Their reason is singular: to establish dar-al-Islam in dar-al-harb. The only reason jihad goes into hibernation periodically is an aggressive and assertive Western response (think of the Reconquista, the Crusades, Lepanto, Tours, etc.) The reason for the current resurgence in jihad is perceived Western weakness dating back to the Iranian hostage crisis. Our victory in the War on Terror (Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Iran, and Pakistan) may put jihad to sleep for several more generations if its critics (yourself included) don't drain the West of what little fortitude it has left.

    Once again, they are the bad guys; we are the good guys. It's really no more complex than that.

    Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 11, 2008

23. Dear Mr Osonitsch,

    I will not get down to an exchange of insults with you. From what you say, we have exactly the same understanding of the threat we face from Islam.

    I just don’t think establishing two Islamic states is the way to deal with the threat.

    Since Mr Adams and I had an exchange regarding the respective Constitutions of Turkey and Iraq, perhaps it would be instructive if I set out some of the provisions of the Turkish Constitution for comparison to what we enabled in the Iraqi Constitution (see my article Fighting and Dying for Islam). And please bear in mind that Turkey has a predominantly Muslim population.

    Article 2: The Turkish Republic is a nationalistic, democratic, secular and social State governed by the rule of law, based on human rights and the fundamental tenets set forth in the preamble (which makes no mention of Islam).

    Article 10: Every individual is entitled, by virtue of his existence as a human being, to fundamental rights and freedoms, which cannot be usurped, transferred or relinquished.

    Then take, for example, Article 12: All individuals are equal before the law irrespective of language, race, sex, political opinion, philosophical views, or religion or religious sect.

    Nowhere does the Turkish Constitution subvert the Constitution to Islam, as both the Afghanistan and Iraqi Constitutions do.

    We missed a great opportunity, and as I have said previously, it seems to be for the sole purpose of appeasing Islamic sentiment. And I think it a shame that so many courageous young men and women are dying for the two Islamic States we have established. We are simply going to have to go through the whole thing again at some point in the future – and that will require further sacrifice.

    You are absolutely right about my opinion of McCain. I have said, and I still say, that he is an idiot. I expect that is the real source of your malevolence towards me, not my opinion about the threat we face from Islam, and the mess we are making in dealing with it.

    I am happy to debate these issues further, but not on the basis of an exchange of insults.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 11, 2008

24. First of all, I insulted no one, so lighten up. Second, you are debating nothing; you're simply changing the subject. Third, I can't stand John McCain. As you may recall, I was a Rudy supporter. As I recall you "hated" Rudy for being divorced.

    If you want to truly debate, let's have at it, but spare me the thin skin and phony hurt feelings.

    Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | June 11, 2008

25. Dear Mr Osonitsch,

    I shall not try to point out to you why your comments were insulting. I shall take you at your word that that was not your intention (if that is what you are saying).

    So let’s start with why you think establishing two Islamic States is a sound basis for dealing with the threat that you and I agree Islam poses. How does setting up two Islamic States deal with the threat Islam poses?

    Secondly, you refer to Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War). I expect that you know that this means that as long as the laws of Islam are not prohibited, or as long as the peculiar institutions of Islam exist, such a country can be considered to lie within “the abode of Islam” (which is what Dar al-Islam means), rather than within Dar al-Harb.

    Now, considering Bush’s statements regarding Islam, it seems that the United States falls within Dar al-Islam, especially considering the almost sacrosanct status Islam is now accorded in the US.

    So why would Muslims then see the United States as falling within Dar al-Harb? Could it be that notwithstanding the freedom of worship granted to Muslims in the United States that there is another reason that the United States is perceived to fall within Dar al-Harb – that is, a place where there is a struggle against or opposition to the Will of God? And could that relate to the issues I have raised?

    Perhaps you could also then address the disconnect I have identified between the Islamic perception of what has been gifted the Iraqis in their ‘liberation, and our perception.

    Perhaps you could also explain why it is better for Iraq, and Afghanistan, to have Islamic Constitutions, rather than the type of secular Constitution of Turkey. Given the various expressions of admiration of Islam that have emanated from the White House and State Dept, I should be interested to hear your explanation on why this is not plain and simple appeasement.

    Finally, for the starters, perhaps you could explain why the top two Intelligence Chiefs in the United States have to resort to telling the press that the Taliban and al Qaeda have regrouped in Pakistan/Afghanistan, rather than in Iraq, and pose a grave danger to the West and the United States.

    Perhaps you could also point to some clear policy statement by Bush, or McCain, that explains how they intend to deal with that problem – especially since Mr Khan (the Father of the Islamic atomic bomb) is now saying that he did not act alone is disseminating nuclear know-how. In fact, I think he actually hinted that the United States was complicit in that dissemination.

    If we could clear these initial hurdles, I think we may be able to engage in a debate on Islam itself, and how best to deal with the threat – I trust that you are familiar with the Koran?

    I am very much open to be persauded that we are on the right course.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 11, 2008

26. Mr. McMillan
    Perhaps we are on to the "right thing" phase.
    We started with supporting Afghanistan's Taliban, Saddam against Iran, went on to the Gulf War, U.N. sanctions, lots of inspecting and diplomatic horseplay, a warning to Saddam and sons to leave the country or be attacked, and finally here we are today.

    Churchill likely would have argued the right thing was for Bush #1 to take Saddam out after chasing him out of Kuwait.

    Comment by nick adams | June 11, 2008

27. Dear Mr Adams,

    If it were not for these facts, I may be persuaded by your assessment:

    1. We have facilitated the adoption of a Iraqi Constitution that is subverted to Islam – in other words, we have facilitated the establishment of an Islamic State.

    2. The continued presence of US troops in Iraq is directly contrary to Islam.

    3. The people of Iraq are demonstrating on the streets demanding that US troops leave Iraq.

    4. The majority of the elected Representatives of the Iraqi people are demanding that US troops leave immediately, or at the latest, by the time the UN Mandate authorizing their presence in Iraq expires in December 2008.

    5. In the absence of a Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the US, the US will be obliged to withdraw its troops when the Mandate expires.

    6. A minority in the Iraqi government (including al Maliki) say they are receptive to a Status of Forces Agreement, but only on these terms: US troops be confined to their barracks; US bases can not be used to launch any attack on Iran, or anywhere else; the Iraqi government determine the number of troops permitted to remain in Iraq; US troops may only conduct operations in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government (ie, US troops be at the beck and call of the Iraqi government).

    7. Iran has said that it will oppose any continued presence of US forces in Iraq once the Mandate expires. And it is clear from Iran’s support of Iraqi Militia that “oppose” means escalate attacks against US troops.

    8. The top two Intelligence Chiefs in the US say that al Qaeda have regrouped and established a “de facto safe-haven” on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, and now pose a serious threat to the West and the United States. That seems to directly contradict the assertion that they have all flocked to Iraq and are being eliminated there.

    Now let’s suppose McCain does win the election, and a Status of Forces agreement is put in place (before the Mandate expires) against the wish of the Iraqi people and their elected representatives, how would they set about getting US troops out?

    Well, McCain has told them. McCain has only in the last few days restated his position: he said that any continued US presence in Iraq would depend on US casualties. In short, he is telling the Iraqi’s and Iranians that if they want us out, as they have clearly said they do, they have to ensure that US troops suffer higher casualties.

    Perhaps something positive will come out of all this, but I am finding it increasing difficult to see how that could happen. But I do sincerely hope that I am wrong – and I do mean that, especially for the sake of those who have lost their lives in Iraq.

    Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

    Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | June 12, 2008

28. Mr. McMillan
    I think you should seek out and talk to more people returning from Iraq. Your perception of what the "people" or Iraq want and think does not match what I am hearing from firsthand accounts, and I have been getting them frequently since the war began.

    Over that time I have been able to watch the ups and downs (and compare them to the perceptions influenced by media priorities). There simply has been no question of where everyday Iraqis have their heads and hearts - they know what we are doing there and they know what we are trying to do for them. But unfortunately everyday Iraqis don't count for much because they don't protest, don't fight, don't blow themselves up.

    I think you are making the mistake of paying mind to the most vocal and violent minority, and the government that at this point feels it must pander to them for expediency, and perhaps the press.

    Bur battle for change/reform isn't with the government so much as it is with the people, which is precisely where we have been proving ourselves.

    These people are forming opinions about the character of the people we have sent to their country, and thankfully our emissaries have the backgrounds and character (with the exception of the few and expected boneheads) to make a good impression.

    To the man and woman, the situation as described to me at the street level in Iraq is night and day compared to what it was even a year ago. These times, these days, one by one as they pass, a people less fearful are enjoying life more and seeing the future more clearly.

    Nearly every township has a sister city in the U.S. now and kids are exhanging letters, stories and pictures in classrooms.

    Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Sailors have their sleeves rolled up and are working side by side with Iraqis (which is 90 percent of what goes on day to day), and sweating together in the same tasks is building kindships and good will.

    Any analysis that ignores the human, street level aspects of what is going on in Iraq is lacking something very important. Likewise, "problem-focused" news coverage and "if it bleeds, it leads" thinking, prevents us from seeing anything but a certain asepct of this story.

    We have a lot of hearts and minds in Iraq, the question is how much influence do these people have on their government. That is developping, but with free elections, tyrant like Saddam out of the way, and the country secured by the presence of U.S. troops and increasingly more capable Iraqi security forces, the path to better things is clear.

    No one more than our troops appreciate the lives given in this cause, and they remain streadfast for one reason: they see progress and relationships and understanding growing stronger.

    Not seeing those things makes it harder to envision anything good coming of the effort.

    Comment by nick adams | June 12, 2008

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Site info

Copyright 2001-2008 IntellectualConservative.com. All Rights Reserved.