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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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