Friday, October 20, 2006
Civil War: Better than 'Stay the Course' in Iraq
Diana West perfectly lays out what America's policy should be with regard to Iraq and the larger war against jihadist Islam in an op-ed piece in the Washington Times. It pains me to suggest Civil War as I hate the idea of more innocent people being killed, but the Iraqi people (with the exception of the Kurds) have limited interest in building a functioning nation and a seemingly boundless enthusiasm for jihadi murder. Better they fight each other than us. Ms. West writes:
Guided by the false god of democracy, blind to the zealotry of Islamic culture, we have locked onto a course with no rational endpoint.Read every word. Twice.
Even as we pursue "security," "stabilizing" the Shi'ite-dominated, Shariah-guided Iraqi government—and, thus, creating a natural Iranian (Shi'ite) ally — makes zero strategic sense. But, see here, say supporters of the president's Iraq policy: If we don't secure and stabilize the Shi'ite-dominated, Shariah-guided government in Iraq, that same government falls, America suffers defeat in jihadist eyes, and Shi'ite-Sunni war breaks out in full force.
Well, which scenario is better for the U.S. of A? I vote for civil war. It seems obvious when Shi'ite and Sunni jihadis — and their Islamic world sponsors — are busy slaughtering one another, they have much less time to plan their next attack on Americans, in the region or stateside.
What would a war policy "about us" look like? First, as a matter of national security, it would call for energy independence. It also would be designed to keep jihad out of the West, and emphatically not to bring democracy to lands of jihad. Such a mission would necessarily engage the military in the Middle East, destroying or neutralizing myriad Islamic threats, from Iran to al Qaeda, from Syria to Hezbollah.