And if the West were to succumb to Islamic Fascism?

The thing is, the odds of that happening are awfully small. Communism is, for all of its faults, an ideal that is actually attractive to many people. Islamic Fascism isn't even all that attractive to even people within al-Qaeda--which is why they use "occupation!" rather than "Caliphate!" in their recruiting materials.

Excellent post.

There is denial about the magnitude of this threat from more than just the Left. Elements of the center and right of center, on issues from port security to the borders to the need to project power abroad, can't seem to accept this threat is greater than what we faced from the communists from 1948 until 1991. I especially like your analogy to a Western civil war and how this differs due to the civilization aspect.

Further, communists did not believe suicide would usher in Economic Man. The Islamists believe Heaven on Earth is one step closer even if they have to die to take out 10 or so million infidels.

My question to Professor Reynolds is how long do you think a nuclear-armed Iran or other fundamentalist nation, assured of destruction, would wait before it used its weapon? I don't think 43 months, let alone years, would lapse.

... Or did the West lose through a loss of will – ie, adopting Soviet Communism here at home, complete with GULAGs and Five Year Plans and all the rest?

THAT is my fear with regard to the Islamic Fascists. I do not think that they could defeat us in a conventional war and I think the smartest of them know it. I do worry about the ideological war, and I think that the smartest of them also know that ideology is our weak point. Many of out most articulate and influential people seem unable to unequivically defend our Western Culture and seem therefore willing to make one small concession after another after another ... Yes, we won the Cold War, but in terms of ideological strength, which I think will be key to this war, we are weaker than we were at the beginning of the Cold war. So, while acknowledging and celebrating our military superiority, I still worry ...

Gentlemen, time to update the Terrorist War scorecard. Hekmatyar Gulbuddin...bingo!

I think what Professor Reynolds is trying to combat is the fatalistic gloom some people are experiencing.
I think he takes the threat seriously (he sure keeps his eye on the dusty corners of the fight - as when I was his Afghanistan Correspondent in 2004-2005).
Might have been a bit flip for most of our tastes, but I wouldn;t count the Instapundit as one to disregard the threat entirely.
Or, maybe I have already toasted too many times to Gulbuddin getting caught, and I am feeling excessively charatable.

"But it's not on the order of the Cold War, you know, and we won that one."

There was a great quote in ABC's "Path to 9/11" movie, where General Massoud of the Northern Alliance is trying to explain to Kirk the mindset of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He says (paraphrased):

"You think you won the Cold War, but it is not how they view it. They think, we drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan and then their empire collapsed. They believe they won the Cold War."

See, the main problem we are having fighting (and winning) the war on terror is so many people are unable to see the enemy for who he is. One that is far more committed than we give them credit for, and one with a vision that defeating global powers is not only possible, but already accomplished. The U.S. is just but a second, and essentially final, act.

Just take a look at the Democratic response. No attacks on the homeland since 9/11? It must because Bush is exaggerating the threat! Bin Laden and Saddam didn't know each other before the war? Never mind the fact that al-Qaeda now wants to take over Iraq, if we leave, they will leave too!

The West wants to quickly forget that there is a war - the idea that if we see no evil, hear no evil, then no evil will be done to us.

But although the "Path to 9/11" can't be considered a literal historical accounting, it makes one thing clear. Before burning effigies of Bush, they were burning effigies of Clinton. Before Clinton, there was Reagan. Carter before Reagan. There is nothing America can do to make them happy short of converting wholesale to their brand of fanatical Islam.

There can be no negotiation because the enemy does not want to negotiate. There is either total victory or total defeat.

Democrats, the Kos Kids, the Michael Moore Moonies sadly believe that sticking our heads in the sand will make the problems go away because it'll make our asses look great.

Since I'm a declared enemy of totalitarianism, if Islamic Fascism wins, I'm dead. Literally. Don't think that there woulnd't be a roundup of bloggers if the Islamofascists ever took out Western civ.

So can anybody explain to me how invading Iraq reduced the threat of "Islamic Fascism"? It seems to have made it much worse.

i was just reading this morning about how china is working hard to assist an islamic nation riddled with fundamentalists and the taliban increase its nuclear technological capabilities. that nation is our ally, pakistan. thus, i can find no mention of this outside the asian press.

i find it a very interesting difference between left and right bloggers. the left is quite angry, as is to be expected from the side that is not in power and which is forced to watch as many of the pillars of liberal ideology are dismatled by conservatives.

the right seems to be afraid. all the time. for why else would so many speak so ceaselessly about a threat "worse" than hitler and communism, is it of note that these same authors rarely find the time to take up arms to battle what they fear the most?

eventually, there will be cause to use the dire language of this post, because eventually, some group of terrorists is going to take advantage of all the incompetence and bungling going on in this country with respect to things that actually have to do with security. unfortunately for all of us, most of the money spent in the WoT has produced little more than enriched cronies. from limo rides paid for by DHS to meat packers hired as translators, because actual linguists were pushed out of service for the crime of being gay, the bush administration is wasting your taxdollars in an orgy of ineffectual posturing and pork.

but because the administration understands you so well, folks on the right are blind to the worsening situation, even as they are obsessed with jingoistically meaningless terms like 'islamofascism.'

i wonder, what would your grandparents and great grandparents, the ones who actually put on a uniform, sacrificed at home by driving less and getting by with less to support the war effort, feel about all this blustering? truly, there are things you should be afraid of, but most of them are right here in america, hypnotizing you into an uncritical and lemming like state, because far to many of you don't know the difference between complex reality and cartoon fantasy.

Clark, the Bush Doctrine is the reason for the Iraq war. Bush postulates that if we can establish democracies in the midst of the Islmaofascists turf that when people find out that freedom is a good thing that it will spread. Of course, fascists cannot abide freedom and they will fight to the last to stop it because it will put a stop to most of their modus operandi.

Islamofascists want to subjugate women by browbeating them, physically assaulting them and causing their genitals to be mutilated so they cannot enjoy sex any longer and it will be a painful ordeal to be endured and not cherished and enjoyed. They have small dicks and this is how they compensate for their "lack of manhood". This is the only reason I can determine because if you look at the whole of Islam, their "prophet" would be arrested, tried and imprisoned and likely executed today. You know the story - pedophile, murderer, thief, adulterer - generally a real asshole who does not deserve any "worship" only revulsion and scorn.

Great post. I don't think we will be out gunned, however, simply out-bred.

I dunno; I kinda see musing about what would happen if the Islamists took over comparable to musing how bad things would be if the ants took over and started pushing around. It would be terrible (especially if they were stinging ants), but it seems more the plot for a scifi novel.

DailyPundit has added Instapundit's reply to a similar post at his site:

Glenn responded in email and assures me he doesn't underestimate the threat, and that his post was primarily aimed at bloggers "who sound like they're ready to slit their wrists now so that their delicate virtue won't be taken by the marauding Muslims."

Professor Reynolds said: "I'm just tired of all the bloggers going on about how we're doomed. We're not."

He makes it sound like bloggers think we're all doomed, and of course we're all not doomed. The problem is that some of us are doomed. The majority of us will survived. It will suck if your not one of those that survive the next attack.

You're absolutely right, Chicago Dyke. Nobody in this crowd ever criticises government graft and incompetence. We're just bleating sheep, dutifully following our Dear Leader and desperately begging to be protected from the wolves. [/sarc]

First of all, this site hardly represents the Right. Most of us are all about the sex, drugs, and rock & roll. As a result, we hope to neutralize those who want to take away our sex, drugs, and rock & roll.

At the moment, the biggest threat is from those who wish to establish a new Caliphate. Once that problem is taken care of, our next big problem will be the Religious Right in this country.

If more of your brethren were willing to face up to the threats at hand and offer effective measures to neutralize them, we'd happily (well, reluctantly, at least) throw in our lot with you. But you haven't, and you won't. You've given us nothing but empty criticism and wishful thinking.

So for the time being, we're sleeping with the enemy, knowing that once this crisis is solved, we can dump him and rekindle our time-honored acrimony.

And don't get me started on your empty chickenhawk 'argument'; that was buried years ago. Now if anyone can give me back the five minutes I just spent feeding the clueless troll, I'd gladly trade a glass of your favorite intoxicant.

I have conflicted feelings about this. Like Cog, I am very concerned about the demographic differences. I am not so worried about the Muslims who immigrate to the US. They will gain a few converts (John Walker Lind types or women who marry greencard seekers) but these are mostly losers. The Muslims who move here are more likely to lose their own children to secularism and MTV. Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs McWorld should be read again.

The problem comes from a nuclear Iran. Modern Muslim culture is bankrupt. The glories of the 11th century don't count for much. For all their wealth for oil the Arab countries can't create new drugs or even MP3 players. The elite consume Western goods but the growing mass of the disenfranchised poor can only respond with anger. If you can't enjoy the fruits of wealth then you act to destroy the prosperity of your rivals. This is tribalism at its worst. The Islamicfascists promote the power to destroy. In the past these feelings of economic inequality would have been of little concern. BUT 19 men on 4 planes caused tremendous destruction; what could 19 men and 1 atomic weapon do?

Instapundit Reynolds is correct. Intellectually they cannot even challenge us. Technologically, we move to the stars while bin Laden hides in a cave. But they take the power to destroy seriously. We don't.

Bush turned a day of mourning into a cheap political event yesterday? That is shameful.

Just days after the Republican controlled Senate reported that Saddam and Iraq had no links to Osama and Al Qaeda, Bush uses 9/11, and the nation's focus on it, in an attempt bolster support for his war in Iraq.

Where is the decency in that?

Seems like this season's progressive talking point is that conservatives (or at least pro-war folk) are really overcompensating pussies.

(A tiny bit sorry for the colloquialism, CD.)

And of course there is nothing to fear but Bush's incipient totalitarian fascist state. That's what should have our knickers completely twisted. (That's a hardy perennial.)

CD, I'm with you on the idea that America, at least, isn't in any danger of embracing dhimmitude. (There are parts of Europe I wouldn't be so sure about, though....) What I am worried about is what happens if some well-funded group of jihadis get it together enough to (a) obtain a reasoably-sized nuke, (b) obtain a big-ass luxury yacht, complete with micro-copter, and (c) use it as a delivery platform to suicide nuke downtown manhattan from 1000 feet.

You think America is in danger of becoming a militaristic, globe-dominating empire, willing and eager to eradicate all who are unwilling to bow to her will? Well, I worry about that too. And I think the shortest path there is the one I described above, or something very similar.

Of course, the guys down at the WTC site yesterday wearing "Investigate 9/11" tee shirts weren't using the occasion to play politics. No sirree bob.

"Investigate 9/11" T-Shirts at the WTC site is not playing politics, rather it is "speaking truth to power".

Even if you are handing out free "Loose Change" DVD's.

So there.

bolivar,
While I don't disagree with your post a few points of trivial contention.

According to Dr. Jacobus X. (1898) the average penis length differs by race in the following order going from longest to shortest. Negros, Arabs, Whites, and Asians. I don't remember the exact dimensions but I do remember being rather thrilled I am not Asian. (For any Asian guys out there, I know that group norms don't apply to individual subjects)

Another interesting aspect of Arab culture, according to an Arab friend of mine, is that anal sex is very common. Intercourse is so strictly banned that it is avoided outside of marriage. However, anal sex is not really considered sex and thus it is engaged in quite a bit more often. Acts that we would consider homosexual are not considered so if there is no emotional attraction. If have also seen this mentioned in a few places but no cite comes to mind and I can't even remember if the sources were particularly dependable.

Alex(#1): I take it you aren't familiar with OBL's fantasies of restored Andalusia, or the numerous documented references of Muslim "leaders" speaking on Western soil of a day when the Islamic flag flys over the White House and 10 Downing. Just because it's BS doesn't mean it isn't a prominent part of the recruiting package.
chicagodyke: Meat packers replacing gays? Not going there. You do forget however, that there are many vets out here who don't blog, but nonetheless support the common sense bloggers. The "right" only seems to be afraid to you because it's a meme that you have bought into. I reject it. I'm more afraid of another feckless administration vainly pursuing goodwill through the navel gazing of "root causes".

When I was growing up back in the McCarthy era, contrary to popular myth, people were not jailed for espousing communism. So to today we should not jail muslims! Well duh, you say. But like communists who espoused the overthrow of the government, muslims who advocate violence against "infidels" should be dealt with harshly. Heck if I can't run a campaign ad as a private citizen then at least fanatical muslims could keep their murderous thoughts to themselves.

If we could agree on that simple point the West would be saved in a heartbeat. Think about it.

We don't need a fatalistic attitude nor a doom and gloom approach to current events. What we need are simply honesty and truth.

We need people who understand the basic tenants of Islam and the threat it represents to the concepts of equality, democracy and human rights. These do not and cannot exist in an Islamic society.

The facts are that the Quran is filled with hate and anger toward non-Muslims and Mohammad - Islam's great and 'noble' prophet - was a man that did many vile acts, including murder, torture, rape, plunder, enslavement of captives and even wife beating. This is what the hadiths tell us, and they are accepted by 99.9% of Muslims and were written by Mohammads friends and followers. Then people pretend that these facts have nothing to do with current events and the radicals are practicing a 'perverted' form of Islam. No. No. No - this is the real Islam, and get used to it. The radicals are doing what Mohammud did.

We need leaders that will stand up and tell Muslims the un-pc truth about their faith. We need to ask Muslims to condemn the hate and violence in the Quran. We need them to condemn the evil acts of their prophet. You cannot be against terror and respect Mohammed. Mr. Green is right about Prof Reyolds - he (Instapundit) is too timid. Glen's heart is in the right place. Oh yes, don't count on the media, the politicos, and academia to be honest about Islam. They are hopeless and they do not care.

Don't count on 'moderate' Muslims either. The facts are, again, that the moderates cannot stand up to the 'radicals' because these have the Quran and hadiths on their side. The problem is that the moderates must convince people that the Quran and hadiths don't mean what they say - as seen in recent debates on British TV:
http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article1222688.ece
Quote: "Those who have been engaged in the debate on the interpretation of Islam in 21st-century society see the approach being promoted by Shariah TV as extremely dangerous, leading, among other things, to a literalist approach to Islam. Instead of promoting a debate on how the primary source of shariah (the Koran) can be re-interpreted in contemporary Britain...."

I have never seen a national figure stand up and be honest about Islam. We don't need planes, soldiers, bombs, and wire taps as much as we need truth and honesty.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and blame others.

John Arthur Kactuz

Ever heard the saying "Power perceived is power achieved"? Being negative on Islamofascism is tantamount to admitting defeat.

One should never hint at or admit defeat in a struggle such as ours. Thank goodness many of us (esp. old soldiers like me) don't. We fight until the war is done; We kill until our enemy is vanquished.

In his article 9/11: FIVE YEARS ON - Osama's Error, Amir Taheri puts it best:

"The world is witnessing a new type of war in which none of the traditional causes of conflict such as territory, borders, natural resources and markets are the prize. The prize in this war is human freedom. And this is why, no matter how long this conflict takes, the enemies of freedom cannot win."

ChicagDyke: a supremely ironic point of view, considering that if the caliphate does indeed come, you will be among the first to be put under the blade.

No explanations, no leniency, mercy. Reason, logic, passion, none of it will stay your execution.

None of it.

They hate you for what you are, and that is less than human. You are an incoherent animal to be culled.

Pleading for your life will only incense them further into a murderous rage, as they look upon you in spiteful hate because you, with your hysterical crying and mumbling, only confirm what they already think of you: you are weak, morally retarded. As a lesbian, you disgust them.

Doesn't matter if they're correct in that vein or not, it only matters that they think they are correct...

and that there is no one else around to help you.

You see, it's really not that complex. They hate you, they have always hated you, and they will always hate you, which, to tell you the truth, you shouldn't have any problem with. I mean, there are people who live down the street or block from you right now that hate you, right? Not a big deal. I do my thing, they do theirs, and never the 'twain shall meet.

But these people, the ones who belong to that subsect of the human population who adhere to the ideology that you so casually refer to as an "jingoistically meaningless" are right now actively hunting you. Their "grandparents and great grandparents" did the same to yours. Nothing you do, nothing, short of putting a round through your own temple, thus saving the trouble of actually having to deal with you, will have any kind of an effect whatsoever.

The primary obstacle between you and them...is me.

And thousands of men and women like me.

Serving in uniform.

Sincerely, try not to worry. As long as I have any say in the matter at all, they will never have the opportunity to harm you.

I swear this to you.

"...heavy words are so lightly thrown..."
-Morrissey

Natalie said:

"Investigate 9/11" T-Shirts at the WTC site is not playing politics, rather it is "speaking truth to power"."

I'm not sure if your being serious or sarcastic, but this "speaking truth to power" meme the left uses has always made me laugh. Like that Stephen Colbert thing, they get giddy and wet-in-the-knickers over "speaking truth to power", like it's some big accomplishment.

Wake me when you can "vote power out of office."

You don't need to defend western culture. It is insidious like a virus. You think the west itself wanted western culture. Hell no. They were just unable to resist it. Ask yourself this question: "What would Thomas Jefferson make of modern America". I think he would start crying and then convert to Islam and become a terrorist.

What is more attractive to you veiled women or bikini clad women. Enjoying sex or praying five time a day. Watching MTV or reading the Koran. There is no contest.

All the West has to do is the same thing it did to communism, contain Islam. Eventually they will be infected with the same culture that has infected us.

I'd rather accept that fate than to cower. I knew that going in. I'd gladly die a warrior's death than to live 100 years as a coward.

Steve, your link to Glenn's post is malformed (missing close quote).

I've posted a reaction to Amir Taheri's article (and your post) here.

I think the Pundit is more right than wrong.

Yes, the stakes are high; essentially everything we consider of civilized value. But the enemy is not very strong. The enemy is, however, implacable, and will not just go away of his own accord; this war has been going on since about anno domini 622, and will probably run for a few more decades yet.

But the same thing is true now as was obvioiusly true on September 11th; there is no force extant which can defeat the United States, except ... the United States. The war for Western civilization will be won or lost not militarily but as a matter of US politics. (I consider that Europe has rendered itself inconsequential in this matter, although I suppose there's a chance that the Euros may wake up in time.)

Until radical fascistic Islam is destroyed in detail, I will not vote for anyone who puts relatively trivial matters - like, say, details of Medicare policy - over defense. Nor for anyone who merely claims to put defense first, even though we know better - that weenie Kerry, for example.

Now if a hundred million or so voters do the same, and keep doing it, the Islamoproblem will eventually be solved in a satisfactory, albeit possibly brutal, manner.

So, fix the problem - vote right and vote often!

Michael and Assman,

Regarding demographics, I think you will find it the other way round. Parents of muslims who immigrate to the West are generally not the problem. Having lived under Islam they appreciate the freedom of the West. It is their children that are the problem. They Have never really lived under Islam, so they don't have a clue what a crap life it would be. It is they who are taking up the cause, and are attracted to jihad.
In a western world where guns, violence, and murder are part of cultural icons, why wouldn't a religion that advocated those memes (with eternal glory thrown in) not appear attractive?
Take a look at the home grown terrorists in Britain. They didn't immigrate, they were born there. The additional problem is that you do not have a leg to stand on with regards to deportation as they are born in Britain (which again, is a bloody good reason to start severely limiting immigration from muslim nations).

The only upside is that if 1st generation males are being sucked into jihad, then 1st generation females are trying to escape it. Islam is great for males, not so for females, who look around them and see the freedom women have and want a piece of it too. Unfortunately though, this could lead to the import of brides who are more into Islam without the 'tainting' of western society.

In conclusion, this century will see either the death of west, or the death of Islam.

-- what would your grandparents and great grandparents, the ones who actually put on a uniform, sacrificed at home by driving less and getting by with less to support the war effort, feel about all this blustering? ---

They're saying bring them home so they can preserve their SS and medicare......

Let us also not forget that the Islamists have found that anger and violence gets them respect - from the media, mainly.

It should get them nothing but contempt, but in today's multiculturalist, post-modern politically correct world, Muslims have found that hate and violence gets them what they cannot achieve through industry, commerce, education, art, science, and culture - respect. Witness the Mohammed 'cartoon war' earlier this year. Never once did anybody stand up and say - "Wait a minute, lets talk about this guy. Let's look at what Mohammed actually said and did". At best, all we got were weak, meek talks from our leaders about freedom of speech AND the need to be respectful and not offend.

Pathetic!

This means that we will only get more hate and violence, because that is the only thing Muslims have that works for them. No matter what we do, they will not change. In about 2 and a half years we will be out of Iraque and they will still hate us. Remember, Islam is perfect, so it must be our fault.

Bad times are coming, and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt. If it is any consolation, it will happen first in Europe. In fact, the Europeans have gone to bed with the devil, and soon they will pay the price. Fausto is in deep trouble.

Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses and pretend it has nothing to do with the 'real' Islam.

John Kactuz

PS: More Islamic awareness - Quote: Ibn 'Aun reported: ...The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. (Bukhari, Volume 7). Sounds like terror to me...

The next time a Muslims tells you how wonderful, tolerant and humane their great prophet was, please refer them to...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.
Note that it is from a Muslim site at the University of Southern California.
Pregnant woman, dagger, belly, blood...

Ring, Michael and Assman,

It is a matter of demographics, but there are other important factors.

First of all let me make clear that the massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena that has only occurred in the last generation. Before that it was Europeans, Asians or even Africans (against their will). Prior to the 1960s when immigrants came from Muslim countries, it was mostly Christians escaping the evils and discrimination they suffered under Islam and Sharia.

Understand also that the rules have changed - 100 years ago a family would move and they had to integrate. Now with multiculturalism, welfare and technology, this is different. A group can live, work, worship and even hate, and live side by side with another group. When people praise past immigration (as in the US, Canada or Australia) they are talking about a world that no longer exists. It is like the generals planning for the last war. Things have changed, but the politicians and intellectuals don't know it.

Welfare now makes immigrants independent of work and responsibility. PC language makes them immune from OFFICIAL criticism and Multiculturalism discourages integration. Leftist politics give them confort and support, blaming their actions and problems on everybody else. Modern technology means they can live in the West like they never left home (and even eat their favorite Pakistani dishes or watch their favorite Imam in Old Arabia on TV telling them to hate the infidels). Lax immigration laws mean they can get wives from back home and even bring the rest of the family. The result is that we have a large and fast growing population among us that, in many cases, does not share our values and ideals. No, not all Muslims are bad, but they are not honest about their religion - and so we cannot count on them to stand up for freedom.

It is a whole new world. The effects of globalism, new communication technology and mass immigration are so many and so deep that they are beyond any individual's understanding. This is a dangerous mixture one day and it will explode. Boom.

We have only just begun to see the results of these changes in demographics. As far as I am concerned, Muslim immigration is just a slow jihad. Don't count on 'moderate' Muslims to be on the side of equality and freedom, they are, at best, in denial or ignorant. It is the radicals that speak for Islam and set the agenda, the moderates only make excuses and pretend it has nothing to do with their faith.

Sorry, but that is the sad, naked truth.

John Kactuz

Our survival as a nation most of us recognize hinges on Islamic Totalitarians getting the Islamic Bomb. It is as simple as that and if you don't think this is accurate consider what just 5 of those weapons in the hands of those with the will to use them would do. See it is not the number of weapons nor the sophistication of the weapons that matters, it is the will to use them. We survived the coldwar because the Russians were in the end rational actors who loved their families as much as we did ours.

Those we fight these days are a completely different lot. They have the desire and will to use these weapons. It is their stated goal to murder as many of us as possible. It is their hope to make those of us who survive submit. I will not. But many more will.

Consider this scenario. 2 nuclear weapons go off one each in New York and Los Angeles. A broadcast from Al Jazeera the next day warns that they have more hidden and will ignite them should the US Government retaliate. Furthermore a series of demands will be made to the US People to change their Government and policies towards the Middle East. Yes Israel is irrelevent but our abandoning Israel as per the demands of these maniacs will be a signpost of our impending total defeat. On the 5th day another weapon goes off in Mobil Ala. The terrorists still have two more weapons....how many people in the US do you believe will remain in the cities waiting to see where the next ones go off?

For those of you who declare that Iraq was a waste of time and not central to the War. I call bullshit to that...
Saddam Al Qaeda Connections and Collaborations

One thing I would like to add, notwithstanding the many salient points made here already.
I see this war also (even more so) as a war between Capitalism and Marxism. Islam is only a proxy. The international left don't care for Islam either, they're just using it. Previous global conflicts have been started by Jihadi uprisings, but the puppetmasters were always elsewhere (ie. Germany).
I predict Islam will be emboldened into further attacks, but will eventually overplay their hand and be destroyed. Then the real conflict will manifest itself.

So can anybody explain to me how invading Iraq reduced the threat of "Islamic Fascism"? It seems to have made it much worse.
Posted by: clark at September 12, 2006 05:34 AM

Excellent question, clark, and one that I've been asking my local police chief.

He's been fighting a "War on Crime" for about 16 years now, but crime rates haven't gone down AT ALL. In fact, I think they might have actually increased, but don't quote me on that, I don't have the numbers in front of me.

I've been demanding an explanation, asking for his exit strategy, trying to tell him that he should just get out - the idiot doesn't seem to think he's actually making things worse - but all I get are empty the same hollow platitudes about "Staying the course" that he's been using for years.

Sometimes I feel like just giving up, but too many lives are at stake. Last month there were four casualties - two people were killed during a bank robbery, and two civilians (the police called them "armed suspects") were killed in the crossfire.

For their sake, I will perservere.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Glenn Reynolds

Glenn has 'issues' on this matter. A number of them. Especially in his position as a professor of law at a major university.

In such a position, he cannot come out like Charles Johnson, lest the 'academic' jihadis and their supports come after him like the American-Muslim Charles cites today, feared the REAL jihadis would come after him.

It might be true that he is 'soft' on Islamic terrorists. He certainly comes across that way. But I'll wager that if his family where to suffer, directly, from a jihadi attack, he'd come out swinging.

And therein, I think, lies his true weakness. Like all too many people, he can't conceive of the threat until it punches him where it REALLY hurts.

For most people, that's their family. For the REALLY 'dense', it's immediate family. People with better vision can see farther ahead than that. Some people can see a threat coming from well over the proverbial horizon, like the dust kicked up by so many hard-charging camels. Others can perceive it until there's a scimitar in their gut.

For whatever reason, Glenn comes across like the latter. YOU come across like the former.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Welcome to the Party, pal! -- Bruce Willis in Die Hard]

I'm at a point of disagreeing with both Stephen Green and Glenn Reynolds.

First, there's plenty of oil in tar sands and oil shale to keep the West going for centuries. We're talking about tens upon tens of billions dollars worth of infrastructure, a base price of $30 to $40/bbl, and scrapping environmental sensibilities. However, if the Iranians nuke the Saudi Eastern Province and the alternative if $6/gallon gas, the political basis for this materializes overnight.

Second, I think the notion of the GWOT as some sort of small potatoes compared to the Cold War is fundamentally mistaken. The Soviets went through a phase of subsidizing political terrorism in the 1970s with the IRA, Red Army Brigades, etc., but Al Qaeda has probably already killed more people as they did. Deterrence theory also worked with the Soviets. The US death toll in the Cold War was over 100,000 between Korea, Vietnam, and steady incremental drain of training accidents that a big, ready to fight, military extracted over a 40+ year span. In the GWOT, the death toll for the USA is still under 10,000, but civilians are at near parity with military. A single nuke in a US city could put us at parity with Cold War casualty totals.

But if that nuke ever occurs, US opinion will quickly revert back to 1944 and the notion of doing whatever it takes to disable Jihadi military capability, regardless of how many local civilians perish in the process, will probably turn into US policy. That will be an enormous tragedy, but the technical ability of Western arms to slaughter vast numbers of our enemies hasn't been in doubt for centuries.

TO: Norm
RE: The MAD Elephant in the Living Room

"But if that nuke ever occurs, US opinion will quickly revert back to 1944 and the notion of doing whatever it takes to disable Jihadi military capability, regardless of how many local civilians perish in the process, will probably turn into US policy." -- Norm

True.

And I suspect that everyone with any real sense recognizes that option is ALWAYS there. Whether or not the Iranians realize it depends on how much 'sense' they have.

Iran, even with North Korea and Communist China, could not achieve the destruction of the US. However, the US could achieve the very real and literal destruction of all three of them, all at the same time.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell]

Well....maybe George didn't have a firm grasp of massive nuclear retaliation.....

Let me just point out that the Cold War began in 1789.

And it is nowhere near being "over" or "won". Not by a long shot.

If we could immediately stop the flow of oil out of the ME thereby stopping the flow of money into the hands of people who fund terror, the war would continue. There is enough money in their hands to fund the war for quite sometime. Anyone imagining that if we don't use oil the war will stop just hasn't read about the 1300 years of war between the West and the Jihadists.

Furthermore the idea that being a Jihadist is some new fangled idea has to be dispensed with, ask yourselves who would Mohammed feel more at ease with a moderate or a radical? Mohammed was a radical not a moderate. His religion is not a moderate religion. His followers get upset when you suggest that their religion needs to be reformed.

Ralph Peters had a dhimmi like article in the NY Post the other day that claimed people like me were Bigots. And yet in the very same article he several times called on Islam to reform. Exactly why should it reform? What is wrong with it Ralph?

A colleague of mine is Iranian. I have pointed out to him several times that the term "genocide" was coined in the West...

This is part of a blog post I wrote a while ago...

There is no possible way that Islamists can prevail against the West without the direct intervention of God, and so far He's not intervening. The result of 9-11 was a destroyed Taliban and the US occupation of Iraq. What will the result of another attack be? What will the result of a nuclear attack be?

9-11 woke up the West and the West is annoyed. But it's not unified. The West could do so very much more if given reason. Nothing the Islamist militants can possibly do could cripple us. The most they could do is make us very very angry.

... and I meant it. We can't lose. It's impossible. What's not impossible is that winning may become... expensive... in a way that makes today look like a movie and pizza date compared to a weekend in Bermuda.

The alternative to being "afraid" as chicago dyke said, is not denial. The threat is real. Responding with determination to that real threat is not *fear*. Denial is not *bravery*.

The "fearful" conservatives believe victory is possible. The "non-fearful" liberals believe that victory is impossible.

Constantly the rhetoric is that we can't win. That even trying makes everything worse. It's a disaster and never could have been anything but a disaster while inaction is presented as the way to go... they don't *really* hate us and what the west represents, they just want to be left alone so they'll lose interest eventually if we just back off.

What does that mean? We live in a world where information and culture flows at the speed of light to even the most remote corner of the world. Are we willing to give up this reality?

And even if we were willing... is it moral to stop broadcasting ideas of tolerance, equality, and liberal beliefs about morality to places that really do, honest to god, murder gays and own women?

I wish there was a edit option. I think I want that to read "... as chicago dyke said *we are*,..."

TO: Synova
RE: Patience

"There is no possible way that Islamists can prevail against the West without the direct intervention of God, and so far He's not intervening." -- Synova

He doesn't have to act. He could decide to be very passive and allow Islam to take action.

When was the last time you read the Old Testament of that old Book? Did you notice how all He has to do is do nothing.

On the other hand, putting fear in the hearts of the willfully disobedient Israelites was another approach. Making them into the sort of weak-kneed, spineless sort you were talking about later on in your post.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. -- C. S. Lewis]

P.S. Thank you vaunted American Public Education system.....

TO: Lance
RE:

"The world is witnessing a new type of war in which none of the traditional causes of conflict such as territory, borders, natural resources and markets are the prize. The prize in this war is human freedom. And this is why, no matter how long this conflict takes, the enemies of freedom cannot win."" -- Amir Taheri as cited by Lance

In one respect Amir's got it wrong. This war has happened before. The root cause of this conflict has been seen before. During the initial Muslim campaigns of conquest, ending in 802 at the Battle of Tours; where Charlemagne turned the Muslims back to Spain. And again in the 1500s ending in 1683 at the Battle of Vienna; where the the kings of Christendom defeated the last Muslim incursion into Europe.

This is just another campaign in the millennia old war.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. - Abba Eban]

We won't be outgunned, outbred or outsmarted. We will be outwaited. When the enemy is facing a multi-year war they only need to show power and resistance capability to draw support from the unlettered tribal clans.

We assume that they want what we have. That is wrong. They only want for us to lose some of what we have and they win. They need for us to fail and show the lesser power of our diety. The failures of their diety are a test of their faith.

We lack the patience, the will, the economic and mental perserverence to pursue a long term enemy They have no economic structures to support or defend. They have no armies to feed and train. They simply outwait us. Democracies have little patience and short attention spans. Our Wordy Establishment already shows its loss of patience and irritation that they must come and tell us things that "Everyone Knows". They have no plan of action. They just want the power to show us how they will chat-chat-chat attack the enemy

Our Wordy Establishment will choose to chat-chat-chat away while the enemy will plot and occassionally bomb something with a new group that must be chased down for a chat-chat attack. All the while they grow supporters from the tribes and clans who live in the 12th Century.

This is not a 4 year war. Nor a 10 or even a 20 year fight. This is a challenge across generations. The only path is to militarily fight to a standstill while economic forces make the life of desperate outlaw less and less appealing... Chat-chat will be necessary but muscular response and vigilance will give weight to the wrods. Talk without credibility has never worked.

Glenn has a tendency to be a little phlegmatic.

I'm with you, Steve. We've never seen an enemy like this. This ain't no cold war.

One way to lose to Islamic fascists? Become fascist-like ourselves. Restrict freedom of speech, kill off civil liberties, turn each airport into a DMZ, and more policies along those lines would have a far worse effect on our country than a terrorist attack.

Islamic terrorism is akin to anarchism a century ago, and can be defeated. Unlike communism, a credo that had millions of adherents, a paucity of actual Muslims support the policies of al Qaeda and its ilk. Their popularity derives from a sense of hopelessness and frustration of foreign occupation. See Robert Pape's work on the correlation between terrorism and territorial occupation by a foreign power.

So America's reaction to terrorism is far more important than terrorism itself. I believe Reynolds himself said something like this immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

"So America's reaction to terrorism is far more important than terrorism itself." - Matt

To boil this down to a digital response, I'd say "No." The Jihadi's want us as fellow members of the Salafi branch of the Ummah per one of OBL's (or his facsimile's) latest releases or make us tributary "dhimmi's". That goes past Mussolini's fascism in my scale of nightmare's. But fascist or Jihadi is a false choice. Back in the 1950s you could by guns through the mail, but after the political assassinations in the 1960s that law was changed and we didn't slide into fascism. Time opens new opportunities (like this comment board) and closes or restricts others (like raising the difficulty of taking over airliners to become enormous cruise missiles).

In a broader context, Matt is making a convergence argument that the stress of the competition will make us more like our opponent. This was the Cold War paradigm that Moscow and Washington would meet in Stockholm, but it didn't work out that way. A more apt paradigm is Huntington's "clash of civilizations" with Rome facing Mecca. The trouble there is that the Islamo-fascists are only a minority within their societies, but still one that can count on millions of adherents, mostly in countries that are not occupied by Western forces.

The analog here is the Bolsheviks in Russia, a tiny but motivated minority that seized power from the Kerensky democrats and erected a secular "Sharia" totalitarianism out of Marxist-Leninist thought. Thank goodness we never had a hot war with the USSR, but if we had, a lot more Russians than communist true believers would have died. Likewise, the danger to the larger Muslim community is that the actions of the Islamo-fascists will end up provoking a western reaction that lethally falls far outside the narrow Islamo-fascist faction.

The trouble with the "out-waiting" the west strategy is that we'll eventually invent our way past oil and their influence will collapse.

President Reagan, on the USSR and the Cold War: "We win, they lose".

From top to bottom, left to right, we need that attitude toward the IslamoFascists. And the whole damn world needs to understand that.

In response to the person who said we were not making economic sacrifices, I have to say that possibly you're not. Possibly you're rich enough that gasoline prices are an insignificant fraction of your monthly budget.

For me and mine, though, having gas prices triple has put a serious strain on our budget. And thats despite living conservatively with a small house in the country and not very new cars and paying down credit cards rather than use them.

So speaking as a poor conservative to the rich liberal, feel free to sacrifice by sending some more of your own money to the govenrment.

I think Stephen Green is on to something here with his analogy of a Western civil war. At the end of the day, the Soviets were "like us" and both sides in the Cold War were drawing from the same civilizational references (even when drawing different conclusions) and, even at the lowest point, there was the knowledge that both sides knew the bounds of civilizational norms. We could eventually find detente with them because we had common reference points. This was true even of the Nazis. We may have reviled them but no one could honestly claim that we didn't know where they coming from. Both the Communists and the Nazis were products of Western thinking. That is why I think many people are West are missing the nature of the threat posed by Islam generally and the Islamofascists in particular. Simply put, we are NOT coming from the same place. The Left wants to "talk" but in the multi-culti, Western-centric haze they operate in, they don't "get" it. The Islamists don't want to talk, they want to kill and they want to conquer. Their motivations are totally foreign to us. Obviously they lack the military power to take on the West in an all-out battle but that is not what they are proposing. An ideological war is about much more than materiel. It's about psychology as much as bullets - hence the use of terrorism and the threatening messages randomly released. They can read us better than we can read them. And we must face the facts - the West HAS become decadent. I don't mean this in a Judeo-Christian morality sort of way. It is simply that we are now too comfortable with our homes and our hobbies and our holidays to take a bunch of 7th century religious fanatics at their word. The Europeans are the worst offenders here. Overcoddled and overfed, they think they can pull a Byzantium and buy off the Muslim hordes at the gates but I don't think it will go according to plan with this crop of Islamists. I think we are in some trouble here if we don't realize what we are up against.

I can't believe I used to read this site. Now it's filled with a bunch of asinine Bush haters that wouldn't know a logical argument if it reached critical mass right in their face.
Back on topic- Every time I think Glen Reynolds has his shit together he defaults back to his pansy lawyer concern over civil liberties. Mostly he seems to want to get on with finding a way to stop aging using nano-bots. I get the feeling he's tired of terrorists (aren't we all). Sure, life goes on but I sense a certain amount of wobble in Glen these days. This country has bigger things to worry about than no-knock warrants(sounds like a local issue). I think I can (and should) get on with life but at the same time support killing every last one of these murderous mother-fuckers that kill in Allah’s name. What I’m tired of is the lack of will.
I’d be perfectly happy to live in peace with Arabs. Since a lot of them don’t want that – in fact, they want to kill me and enslave the world. I think we should kill a lot of them much less discriminately than we are now, much faster than we are now, with much more powerful weapons than we are using now…until they jump wholeheartedly on the multicultural bandwagon. Escalate the wrath until they are begging to be allowed to unconditionally surrender. Total shame. Total defeat. That seems to be what they understand. I mean, they say they want death – let them have it.

is the resurgence of jihadism merely nativism?

no. and it's not a recent phenomena, either. modern jihadism goes back to post-WW2. but jihadism is central to islam and how it spread from its meager origins: it congeured and converted through the use of terror.

why is it more threatening now than then?

not because they have camels and scimitars here inj the west, but becasuse they have worse: access to wmd and other products in the West and... they are already HERE. there will be no seige as in days of old because we let them in; they live among us. and they will use suicidal/genocidal attacks.

only when one succeeds will glenn admit he's wrong.

but logically, it is incorrect to assert that just because we have thwarted them so far, they are not a real serious/existential threat.

as soon as they get the means to attack us with wmd, they will use them.

the ussr was not so evil. and the symmetry of the cold war made it safer.

KEITH: RIGHT ON!

TO: Keith
RE: [OT] No Knock

"This country has bigger things to worry about than no-knock warrants(sounds like a local issue)." -- Keith

And it will always be that way....

....until enough people realize that the cops are getting entirely TOO 'trigger happy'.

In Denver, a guy some 60+ years of age was gunned down in his bed during a no-knock raid.

He was armed with a can of pop....

Ooops....wrong address.....

Too bad. Sorry about that, folks. Nothing to see here....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. When it happens near you...see if YOU can do anything about it....if you're still alive afterwards....

P.S. I think you're coming across like that latter group I was talking about earlier. [Note: See initial response to Stephen's post (above).]

I think the main differences are as follows:
-the soviet union possessed an immense amount of firepower
-the islamists of today do not, they must resort to terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare

The expansionary aims were the same, to spread their ideology worldwide.

Culturally, there is little difference, as there was (and still is) a large number of communist supporters and sympathizers in societies around the world in varying proportions, with their base being the Soviet Union, and the same can be said of the islamists, who have significant numbers of followers in varying amounts throughout the world, with a base in the middle east.

Also note that both the communist and islamist ideologies cannot produce wealth on their own; eventually many of their followers are plunged into poverty and/or a low standard of living. However, the soviet union had a strong industrial base and significant wealth (in relative terms) to begin with. In fact, the islamists greatest success in modern times required the hijacking of western technology (large aircraft), technology which they are completely incapable of producing themselves. They must resort to using weaponry that has been invented and is only produced in western nations.

If the islamists of today were to possess the firepower of the soviets, the western world would be terrified, and that to me is the only difference. Instead, the western world believes that entrusting our leaders with the safeguard of our security is sufficient to avoid the islamist threat. Time will tell whether this is enough.

When Russia went Communist it was weak, had lost to Japan in the east and was being bled by the Germans in WWI. Soon afterwards, the Russian communists fomented terror groups within western countries - all through the 1920's and into the 1930's. And slowly they grew their power while building a fifth column in the West and in Asia. Hitler's rise was also in a weak Germany, and he was using similar tactics to try to take over the state apparatus of Germany. In fact, he used the Red scare to justify the tactics he used to combat the bolshevik subversion. And he built up his military power by modernizing his weaponry while claiming Germany had peaceful intentions.

So all through the 1920's and 1930's the US ignored the growing threat from totalitarianism in Europe. The other European democracies practiced appeasement in the 30's. The result - a devastating Second World War that was much worse than if the war had been fought on the Democracies terms a half decade earlier.

Islamic totalitarianism is pursuing the weapons they need to combat the West. In the meantime they are trying to take over the state apparatus where they can or fomenting terror and subversion using fifth columns/operatives within other countries. The parallels to the 1930's are serious. In 1933 neither Germany nor Russia could do anything to harm the US.

Do we have to wait another 5-10 years before we see how the threat could develop and then need to fight a much more devastating fight than if we addressed this head on now?

I can't believe I used to read this site. Now it's filled with a bunch of asinine Bush haters that wouldn't know a logical argument if it reached critical mass right in their face.k

No, those are tourists- Steve got linkage from some leftie site. Happens sometimes, and it's always confined to one post.

The regular commentariat trend strongly to the "...they say they want death – let them have it" side of the debate.

a paucity of actual Muslims support the policies of al Qaeda and its ilk
And yet, I remember it like it was yesterday, seeing the man in the OBL t-shirt offloading (Western) tsunami aid supplies in Aceh.
And we must face the facts - the West HAS become decadent. I don't mean this in a Judeo-Christian morality sort of way.
Although it is incontrovertible that we as a culture are also decadent in that way.

TO: rosignol
RE: In Other Words....

"The regular commentariat trend strongly to the "...they say they want death – let them have it" side of the debate." -- rosignol

...they tend to think like General Sherman,

War is the remedy our enemy has chosen and I intend to give them their belly full of it.

Sherman was of the opinion that only when war hurt the enemy, REALLY hurt them, would they decide it was not worth continuing. Hence his tactics on his march to the sea.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

glenn is wrong to dismiss the ghost dance as doomed to fail.
wovoka's ghost dancers failed because they could not materialize the magical locomotive full of winchesters that they needed to drive out the white-eyes.
the same "miracles of science and technology" that cause them to hate us may just deliver the modern analog of that steam locomotive, in the form of bioweapons or suitcase nukes.

"chicago dykes" comment about "what would your grand parents think about all this bluster" are really amusing, especially as she is implying we should do the same thing that generation would have done.

It's not nice to talk about it any more, but mine would have grabbed a club, a torch, and some rope, and burned out and lynched some "mud people".

And they would have been part of a mob of hundreds.

So, let's hear what "chicago dyke" has to say in defence of lynching "mud people".

a paucity of actual Muslims support the policies of al Qaeda and its ilk.

I guess we have different definitions of "actual" and "paucity". There are about 2 billion Muslim's on the planet. Care to offer a percentage? Judging from surveys in Britain among the Muslim community over 10% would aid terrorists (no source, if anyone challenges it, Google first. If you can't find it, I'll try). 10% of 2 billion is what? Not what I'd call a "paucity".

Their popularity derives from a sense of hopelessness and frustration of foreign occupation.

Who is occupying Indonesia? Africa?

But speaking of "root causes" of terrorism, I'm always confused why those people don't support the Bush Doctrine.

You agree on the cause: Nasty dictatorships have caused radicalization.

Bush said: Let's topple the nasty dictatorships.

The Left said: That's wrong.

The Right said: Then what should we do?

The Left said: We have a secret plan - elect us and we'll tell you.

Uh. Yeah.

I thought it was worth a try. I don't think it is working very well - but leaving isn't a "plan". We could certainly do it. The only reason we're still in Afghanistan or Iraq is because we feel responsible for helping.

We could leave tomorrow and it's really no skin off our backs. If both countries dissolve into chaos, who cares? If the Taliban comes back, we can always just invade and topple them again.

We're aiming to HELP these people.

Like many of the other commenters here, I don't see any chance that we will lose this war. We may have all the hardship and privation that "chicagodyke" wants because our economy will be severely harmed, if not devasted, by Norm's scenario.

But, at that point, it will not be a war of generations - it will be basically over in the time it takes a sortie (flock? flight?) of missles to get from Nebraska, to orbit, to the Middle East.

My biggest questions is: America has proven that we will burn the world to cinders around us before submitting. Do Muslims not get this or do they not care?

The often mentioned yet seldom seen "moderate muslim" should be fighting against the extremist with everything he (the "she"s don't matter for Muslims) has. Islam will be a pretty barren religion with no holy sites left.

Praying seven times a day facing a giant radioactive glass lake just doesn't seem very appealing to me.

P.S. Speaking of fighting the last war and Europe, does anyone know if withdrawing from NATO has been seriously considered?

There doesn't seem to be much advantage to us from being in it. It's very last-century. It would give us a chance to close all the European bases that, other than hospitals, don't seem to be doing us any good. It would avoid any entanglments with Turkey should Iraq splinter and Kurdistan form.

dude - i see you totally didn't like my joke about how that sicko mofo dan dregsner, a professor associated with the disgusting consortium pajamas media (lemme guess - the pajamas means that all you boys sit around in your pj's writing your pathetic pissant blogs and surfing internet porn sites, right!)

dan drezner is a disgusting disgrace to the university of chicago who thankfully had the sense to fire his ass and a more disgusting disgrace to tufts, that hired the a-hole.

Sorry for yet-another post, but I have to ask: What's the word for an anti-sock-puppet? Someone who is so desperate to be noticed that they don't even care if they are "noticed" as someone else?

"weird" isn't the answer I'm looking for :-)

In this case, our most brilliant and creative minds would be killed off. The less creative would simply be repressed, but our greatest genuises wouldn't be able to hide that they simply don't believe. It would be an evolutionary step backwards.

al Queda: Creating a more equal forest by cutting the tops off the tallest trees.

TO: aaron
RE: Hey...

"al Queda: Creating a more equal forest by cutting the tops off the tallest trees." -- aaron

...that sounds like decapitation to ME.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Caught this new commercial last night, but didn't see who sponsored it.

It began and ended with the line ..

They want to kill you

TO: Neo
RE: Not Really

"They want to kill you" -- Neo citing some commercial

That is not their primary interest.

Their primary interest is to get you to worship their god as they worship it.

Failing that they will either tax you, if you're one of the few 'fortunate' who are 'people of the book' or kill you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[How is it that God blesses the Jews and Allah curses them?]

I still don't think glass is our 1st option, we have pig farms which create a lot of waste and we have unwanted dogs.....

We can start w/Qom.

2 billion muslims????

They're inflating their numbers.

Five years on we need to take an assessment.

1) Morocco has defeated the jihadis.

2) Algeria has defeated the Jihadi (at a cost of 2 million casualties)

3) Libya has ceased being a haven. Sun Tzu dictum about winning a war without firing a shot should apply here.

4)Egypt has faced the Muslim brotherhood and seems to be disabling them.

5) Palestinian nationalism is still ineffectual; and their grip on the world's attention span, brief as it was, is waning.

6) Lebanon is still dominated externally; nothing new.

7) Syria is a terrorist state; but now isolated to the North, South, East and West. The Baathist regime is increasingly ineffectual.

8) Iraq no longer has a Baathist regime and No jihadis are winning. Talk of "civil war" is a stupid as can be. You can't have a "civil war" when a 10% minority is opposed by the other 90 %. Especially when the 90% have all the Army, police and all the guns. You could have a genocide like Rwanda though.

9) Saudi Arabia has realized that feeding the Madrases brings them no safety.

10) Kuwait is a grateful Gulf state and an US ally.

11) The Emirates are all anti-Jihadi.

12) Jordan is still a Hasemite Kingdom and has successfully expelled and minimized its Palestinian minority.

13) The Kurds have a nascent state eliminating the next Palestinian-type "No state" war.

14) Turkey remains secular and increasingly democratic. It is not tipping into a jihadi bastion. The Kurdish problem has been solved externally.

15) Afghanistan is no longer a Tali ban jihadi conquest.

16) Iran a non Arab foreign state, is the nexus of Shia terrorism the antithesis of Al Qquedist Sunni terrorism. There is a race on. will the crazies build a nuke and use it, before their regime is toppled internally? My bet is the race is close and the USAF or IAF will delay the Iranian nuclear developments by a decade or more with a Osirek episode.

I didn't get through all the comments so may repeat what has been said already.

First Steve, the only part of your otherwise spot-on post that I disagree with is the idea that a triumphant USSR would have meant the continuation of Western Civilization. After 28 months in Ukraine, an almost carbon copy of Russia, I would disagree. That region is not what I would consider "Western" and I believe that a USSR victory would have devastated Western Civ.

To this comment "So can anybody explain to me how invading Iraq reduced the threat of "Islamic Fascism"? It seems to have made it much worse." I can only reply that there seems to be some confusion about what was going on before the Iraq war and what has happened since.

We are living in a period following years of Al Qaeda building its resources and putting together its plans. The same argument could be made the battle of the bulge. We never found ourselves in that hellhole until after we landed in Normandy. Does that mean that the Normandy invasion was a mistake. I don't think so.

They can't beat us, but we can loose, and lot of leftists are hoping we do, and will use their best efforts to make it happen.

TO: Robert Schwartz
RE: Losing It

"They can't beat us, but we can loose, and lot of leftists are hoping we do, and will use their best efforts to make it happen." -- Robert Schwartz

Then again there is that old adage....

The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Unfortunately, most people can't see so far as to discern the disadvantages of losing a war.....

P.P.S. Even those who have lived through Viet Nam have problems. Look at Kerry.....

Bushvoters: scared stupid.

TO:
RE: Actually....

"Bushvoters: scared stupid." -- Janus Daniels

....your 'projection' is showing.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Do tell us your Mensa membership number.

P.P.S. A number of my associates are Democrats and would not vote for a Republican unless presented with blatantly obvious evidence that to do otherwise would violate their moral principles.

But NONE of them are stupid enough to make the comment YOU made.

If we were not afraid of the mosquitoes we would have all the oil we need and then some in Alaska.
Other than that I agree with your post. Glenn missed the mark this time.