Having a dictator wanting to add allahu akbar to the flag is a symbolic gesture that really means nothing. Ayatollah Sistani’s clout was not huge before we invaded, and grew enormously after we invaded. Turkey…well, if you count that as part of the middle east, you might be right about that one. Lebanon may be 30% christian, but that number doesn’t, in my opinion, mean that Lebanon’s contribution to islamic strife was less than pre-invasion Iraq’s. And while Iranians my have grown disenchanted with their theocracy, their theocracy is still powerful and dangerous. So despite your reasonable counterpoints, I don’t think I’m overstating my case. But even if I am, even if Iraq wasn’t strictly the very least islamic country in the middle east, my point remains valid: islam plays a much greater role there now than it did before we invaded, and we have increased the danger that Iraq’s muslims present by many times.
“Most of the violent Islamic strife is one Muslim faction vs another. To the extent Muslim savagery turns inward, it turns away from us. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years.”
“Thanks for trying to forestall a fullscale civilizational war with Islam by setting up the first representative government in the history of the Arab world, Mr President!”
It seems to me there are some contradictions between those two statements. Islamic aggression against the US has been growing for 30 years, and you want to thank the president for making them angrier at us than ever while accomplishing nothing? And if most violent islamic strife is one muslim faction vs another, then why are you worried about a fullscale civilizational war with islam? Won’t they just be fighting each other? And seriously, do you think we’re farther away from fullscale civilizational war with islam now than we were before we invaded Iraq?
How would I suggest stopping it? All I, personally, can do is vote for somebody who will attempt to go forward in the middle east using foresight, reason, deep thought, rigorous planning and preparation, and intelligence. Sort of the opposite of how bush did it. I don’t know who that will be yet in the presidential race in 2008. But I like Barack Obama. I’ve always liked McCain, but he’s a bit too loyal to bush for my taste. Hillary is a loser. Ditto Kerry. I don’t know much about Guliani yet.
Anyway, to really answer your question about how to stop it, I don’t know. Although I’m pretty sure that if I had access to all the information and advice that bush has access to (not that he ever appears to listen to any advice), I’d probably have a few ideas. As it is, my ideas would be to focus our resouces on Al Qaeda. Oh, the money and lives we’ve wasted on Iraq that we could’ve spent wisely on Al Qaeda. I know, that’s in the past. But it’s in the future, too, at least with bush as president it is. What we’re doing in Iraq right now isn’t working. Whether a troop surge will work remains to be seen. But doesn’t there have to be a point at which you say, “anything short of all-out, American-led martial law will not work to stop the violence. So let’s either implement that law at the expense of reimplementing the draft and spending trillions more, or let’s leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let them sink or swim.” I mean, is another 30,000 troops enough? I don’t know. Like I said, I only have limited information. Is it possible for a nation with the culture of Iraq’s to have a functioning, stable representative government? I doubt it. But again, I don’t have enough information to really make that call. My fear is that the man who does have the information is the same man that has consistently made the wrong decisions where Iraq is concerned.
