THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Two-Alarm Fire
Can we defeat Islamofascism, and do we want to?
by Philip Terzian
Weekly Standard
10/01/2007, Volume 013, Issue 03

World War IV
The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism
by Norman Podhoretz
Doubleday, 240 pp., $24.95

The New York Times and the New York Review of Books have lately had some fun, in their fashion, at the expense of Norman Podhoretz. To review this book, the Times commissioned one of the legion of ex-New Republic editors to record a series of personal insults and condescending phrases in order to avoid contending with the central thesis of the work. The New York Review followed roughly the same strategy, although (to its credit) in a marginally less juvenile tone.

In one sense, the reader could only wonder at the spectacle of two serious publications--I use the term "serious" advisedly--wrestling with the contents of Podhoretz's essay by throwing punches at Podhoretz himself. Surely, one thinks to oneself, these august institutions need not stoop to such depths to score points, or vanquish arguments, or construct alternative scenarios. But they do. And therein lies the lesson of this instructive, important book.

For while its title is World War IV: The Long Struggle Against -Islamofascism, the struggle described here is not against Islamofascism, as such, but against the perception on our side of the aisle that Islamofascism is inimical to Western values and worth a struggle. You need not subscribe to Podhoretz's thesis about the war on terror as the Fourth World War, or share in all of his biases and enthusiasms, to be persuaded that Islamofascism--or whatever term is preferred--is not just dangerous to our existence but increasingly so, and that the challenge of our time is not just to defeat Islamofascism, but to recognize that Islamofascism must be defeated.

Two obstacles seem to impede such recognition. The first is the gradual, even imperceptible, emergence of Islamofascism in the world, disguised as it was in differing forms and thriving in the latter phases of the Cold War. By the time the historic struggle against Soviet communism had ended, the clarity that might have thrown Islamofascism into relief was lost in the moral ambiguity of the Clinton decade. The end of history, the peace dividend, the insouciant response to African and European genocide--none of it was likely to shed light on Islamofascism.

The second, and rather less dangerous, obstacle is politics. Podhoretz has been censured for expending so much effort on holding critics of the struggle against Islamofascism--and, specifically, the Iraq war--to account. But there is method in his anger. For while we need not all agree on the wisdom or blindness of this or that tactic, or strategic vision, in this struggle, Podhoretz makes the successful argument that much of the discourse about World War IV is grounded not in debate about Islamofascism but in domestic politics.

You can hardly expect Norman Podhoretz, or anyone contending with the facts, to comprehend the motives of, say, the Noam Chomskys or Gore Vidals of our world: Their belligerence and derision about their country and its enemies is probably explained by psychiatry, not political science. But the virus that infects them seems to have spread beyond the asylum. With a handful of honorable exceptions, the left is so distracted by contempt for George W. Bush, and so determined to frustrate his administration on principle, that it has lost all perspective on the war on terror, and seems willing to gamble the national interest for political advantage.

That is the message of World War IV, and it's a disconcerting thought. Moreover, it's a thought that leads to darker speculation. If congressional Democrats are more interested in detailing the abuses at Abu Ghraib than pondering the murder of American soldiers and diplomats, what must al Qaeda think? If the Democratic candidates for president compete with one another to withdraw U.S. troops from the front lines of the war on terror, what conclusion will Osama bin Laden draw? If Guantánamo Bay is routinely compared to Auschwitz or the Gulag, what action is sanctioned in America's defense? If the networks and the blogs and the editorial pages and departments of politics in American universities are united in their rage and aversion to George W. Bush and his (not always satisfactory) response to Islamofascist attacks on our soil, how secure are the liberties of Americans?

We may usefully wonder at the mystery of it all: the ethic of a press that demands "neutrality" in a war against terror, or the motive of a senator incapable of rising above partisan interest. But it is equally useful to define, as Podhoretz does, what is at stake; and describe, as he does in characteristic fashion, what has been said and done about World War IV. For the origins of this struggle are comparatively obscure, and uncomfortably--sometimes incomprehensibly--mixed with religious zeal, the romance of death, and tribal conflicts and loyalties that elude our grasp. Difficult to understand, to be sure, yet it's not hard to read the message on the wall.

To some degree, that explains why the Times and the New York Review would choose, in this instance, to avoid any argument on Podhoretz's ground, or even accept his terms of engagement. For the uncomfortable truth is that, on the great moral question of the recent past--how to contend with the Soviet Union--they were reliably wrong and Norman Podhoretz was invariably right: On the nature of the Soviet beast, on the natural human impulse to appease, on the duty of the West, and, not least, on the outcome of the Cold War. Better to throw stones, from their perspective, than to gaze in the mirror.

Philip Terzian is literary editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Oh, but you do deserve the commendation, Ican.

You see the Insurgents (sunnis) owned Iraq before we got there. We entered Iraq uninvited. We took out other fanatics in the process who were running the place. We are now staying to ensure that fanatics don't regain control

It's a perfect match to your response, Ican. You have the heart of an Insurgent within you

Cycloptichorn

Asking Kagan to evaluate the 'surge' is an exercise in hilarity.

Asking the Weekly Standard to evaluate Norman Podhertz is only slightly less so.

Why can't you see the irony in the things you post, Ican? It's truly amusing

Cycloptichorn

iraq body count as of 08/31/2007
MONTHLY UPDATE OF IBC's COUNT OF VIOLENT CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ, SINCE 1/1/2003
………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Totals Since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
Jan.'03 to Dec.'05 ......... 1,024 avg. ............ 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951
April 2006 .................... 1,287..................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 .................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
July 2006 ..................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................. 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 ........... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 ............... 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 ............ 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 ............ 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 ............... 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 .............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .................. 2,720 ..................... 68,132
April 2007 ……………......... 2,359..................... 70,491
May 2007 ..................... 3,755 ..................... 74,246
..................... Surge now fully operational ..................
June 2007 .................... 2,386 .................... 76,632
July 2007 ..................... 2,077 .................... 78,709
August 2007 .................. 2,084 .......…........... 80,793

Bush cut the funding for our vets beginning in 2008. It's already under-funded.

Nothing like a compassionate conservative to care for our troops who gives all.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush cut the funding for our vets beginning in 2008. It's already under-funded.

Nothing like a compassionate conservative to care for our troops who gives all.

Have any dems running for President come right out and said they will increase the VA funding?
If so,who are they and what did they say?

I havent heard anyone, on either side, say they had a plan to increase funding to the VA.

Seeds of terrorism sown in killing fields of Iraq

September 30, 2007
Haroon Siddiqui

In not acknowledging the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, "we are communicating to the people of the Middle East and beyond that we don't care about their lives. We are sowing the seeds of terrorism that could dwarf 9/11."

The warning comes from Professor Les Roberts of Columbia University. He is among a handful of experts tracking the Iraqi death toll, which he thinks stands at "over a million."

He is the co-author of the famous Johns Hopkins University study, released last fall, estimating the Iraqi dead at 654,965. Since then, ORB, a British polling company, has pegged the toll at 1.2 million. Both studies were based on deaths as reported by households.

The United States and its allies do not count Iraqi or Afghan casualties, only those of their own troops. And George W. Bush has acknowledged only 30,000 Iraqi dead.

That enrages Roberts. He told me on the phone that "being forthright about the human cost of the war is essential, and in our own long-term interests. Avoiding the issue will likely come back to haunt us."

Plus, "how can military and civilian leaders comment intelligently about security trends, if they aren't detecting most of the 5,000 plus violent deaths that occur per week?"

Roberts - an expert on zones of conflict, having worked in the Congo (1999-2002) and Rwanda (1994) - is skeptical of Iraq Body Count, the British group that tracks Iraqi deaths by relying on media and other sources.

"A study of 13 war-affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found that more than 80 per cent of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported.

"Media and government reports catch only the tip of the iceberg."

Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire makes a similar argument in the case of Afghanistan. He tracks civilian deaths there on his website, Afghan Victim Memorial Project.

"The American military and political establishment does not want people to talk about deaths," he says, and the media just go along.

Who should we hold responsible for all the civilian carnage?

First, not all the casualties are caused by U.S. and other coalition forces. In Iraq, an increasing number of deaths are attributable to Sunni-Shiite sectarianism; to collateral damage from raging battles between various militias; and to criminal gangs taking advantage of the breakdown of law and order.

Sunnis and Shiites were not at each other's throats until the recent collapse of the social order. The counter-argument is that they weren't because Saddam Hussein had kept them in check. The counter-counter-argument is that they had lived in peace long before him.

Still, under the Geneva Conventions, the coalition forces are responsible for ensuring the safety of the population. But they transferred sovereignty to the Iraqis under a 2004 Security Council resolution.

Therefore, technically, it is the Iraqi government that has "ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of Iraqis," says Glen Rangwala, a professor at Cambridge University and an expert on international law.

"If that government does not appropriately regulate the actions of the coalition military, legal responsibility lies at its door," he told me.

"A counter-argument would go that in some sense, the U.S. and coalition forces have violated the Security Council resolution" by overriding the Iraqi government.

Examples include the detention of five Iranian diplomats in Irbil in January and the construction of the Baghdad security wall. The Iraqi government opposed both.

Given that, "one could argue that the U.S./coalition forces revert to being an army of occupation," in which case the Fourth Geneva Convention and the responsibilities that go with that would apply.

"Even if this is not accepted, then it would be more uncontroversial to say that international law has a poor level of specification on what constitutes a military occupation, what constitutes a puppet government set up by an occupying force, and what constitutes a legitimate handover of power to end an occupation."

Do similar arguments apply to Afghanistan? "Yes."

by Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's editorial page editor emeritus

...

Roberts - an expert on zones of conflict, having worked in the Congo (1999-2002) and Rwanda (1994) - is skeptical of Iraq Body Count, the British group that tracks Iraqi deaths by relying on media and other sources.
...
"The American military and political establishment does not want people to talk about deaths," he says, and the media just go along.
...

hbg, I agree with the conclusion of their analysis that our occupation and killing of more Muslims only increases terrorism.

People talk about "we must fix what we broke," but they ignore the simple fact that we are now destroying the store - not just some items.

The price become greater the longer we stay in Iraq and continue our destruction.

If we were to leave now, the Iraqi civilian violent death rate would surge to more than twice what it has been up to now.

Therefore, technically, it is the Iraqi government that has "ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of Iraqis," says Glen Rangwala, a professor at Cambridge University and an expert on international law.

"A counter-argument would go that in some sense, the U.S. and coalition forces have violated the Security Council resolution" by overriding the Iraqi government.

Examples include the detention of five Iranian diplomats in Irbil in January and the construction of the Baghdad security wall. The Iraqi government opposed both.

Given that, "one could argue that the U.S./coalition forces revert to being an army of occupation," in which case the Fourth Geneva Convention and the responsibilities that go with that would apply.

"Even if this is not accepted, then it would be more uncontroversial to say that international law has a poor level of specification on what constitutes a military occupation, what constitutes a puppet government set up by an occupying force, and what constitutes a legitimate handover of power to end an occupation."

If it surges, it'll be between Iraqis against Iraqis; it's a civil war, and we shouldn't be in the middle of it. They must realize on their own that killing each other is endless; that lesson was learned in Northern Ireland. Whether Iraq will learn that lesson is for them to determine.

People talk about "we must fix what we broke," but they ignore the simple fact that we are now destroying the store - not just some items.

The price become greater the longer we stay in Iraq and continue our destruction.

ican wrote :

Quote:

If we were to leave now, the Iraqi civilian violent death rate would surge to more than twice what it has been up to now.

from the article i posted :

Quote:

Therefore, technically, it is the Iraqi government that has "ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of Iraqis," says Glen Rangwala, a professor at Cambridge University and an expert on international law.

...

it seems to me that in the end the government of the occupying force is responsible for the security of the citizens of the occupied country .
that was certainly true in germany after the second world war ended .
in iraq - i'll leave afghanistan out of this - the occupying country seems either unable or unwilling to provide the necessary security .
while this means more misery for the ordinary iraqis still living in the country , it's also not good for the image of the united states - and britain , to some extent .
citizens of other countries who may want to overthrow a repressive government may hesitate to do so , since they'll likely be left to fend for themselves .

OK! America is the principal occupying force in Iraq and is therefore responsible for aiding the Iraqis in their own self-defense.

Certainly Al Qaeda has had its Ramadan surge," Petraeus said in his first comments to reporters since he returned from Washington to give lawmakers a status report on the war in Iraq. But he said the level of attacks was "substantially lower" than during the same period last year.

The Army general said he saw no need to revise the projections he presented to Congress this month for a gradual withdrawal of the additional forces deployed to Iraq as part of the troop buildup. He did not provide figures.