Hardly a secular president.

BG

I believe OBL’s real motives are mundanely egotistical even though they are couched in religious fanaticism. OBL wants to be known in history as the prophet that established the Great Modern Caliphate. I think he yearns for power & glory, especially to rule Saudi Arabia & use that holy land as a base for the Great Modern Caliphate.

On the question of Saddam having any direct ties to 9/11 as far as actual planning or abetting 9/11: I feel there is a 50-50 chance. I mean if there were some way to prove it one way or another I might put a bet down in Vegas that he did. But I know of no proof that would stand in a court of law.

Also if there were a way to find out the reality I would definitely bet that Saddam was having more to do with terrorists than simply enabling them to evade justice by being allowed to stay in Iraq. It defies common sense, given how ruthless Saddam was, that he would not have been working hand in hand with the terrorists. Why would he not?

And thank you for complimenting my blog.

Tequilamockingbird: Iraq was in no way an Islamic fundamentalist state.

Well, john, I think it’s semantics again. I’ll agree with you that I was wrong in asserting that he killed every (whatever it was) he got his hands on. Will you admit in return that he (SH) brooked no rivalry to the cult of Saddam, and that Islamic fundamentalism (Islamofascism?) was not an important force in Saddam’s Iraq?

I somewhat agree but with many caveats:

Saddam’s fabled differences with Islamic fundamentalists are often cited by anti-warriors, but such internecine rivalries, even if true, would be easily set aside in order to strike at the hated America & other mutually perceived enemies. Saddam’s secular superstructure & the Sunni Muslims in Iraq had no real conflicting interests or goals. That Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, was a murderous dictator wasn’t especially bothersome to the Sunnis since Sunni fundamentalists are rather dictatorial & murderous themselves. After all, the custom of Iraqi day to day life under Saddam was Sharia. True, the state was officially secular, but does anyone remember seeing ordinary women wearing Western-style dresses under Saddam? In fact the principal religious victims of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were not Islamic fundamentalists in general but specifically Shiite Muslims, a group also hated by OBL & his adherents who consider the Shiites an invalid sect of the true Islam. In fact, OBL & his bunch would almost as soon murder Shiites as they would Westerners & Hindus. Therefore, there were no real impediments to cooperation between al Qaeda & Saddam.

Tequilamockingbird: This is not WW II. This is an unjust and agressive war of choice being waged for imperialistic reasons. I’m not arguing with U.S. policy in Afghanistan as a response to 9/11! I’m not arguing that there aren’t horrible and unintended consequences of necessary wars! The invasion of Iraq was illegitimate and unjustified, so for every death — every death, on either side — the blood is on the hands of the agressors.

But I believe the present war in Iraq is both legitimate & justified. So again I ask you: If, as you claim, the present Iraq war is causing & will cause “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” terror attacks, how do you explain the “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” terror attacks before the present Iraq war?”

And if you don’t mind letting me know, what do you specifically assert are the US “imperialistic reasons” for waging the present war in Iraq?

Tequilamockingbird: God, john, you sound as though you believe the world is more safe because of Iraq. If a few lunatics blew up bombs before, and now thousands of people are being radicalized and galvanized into hating the U.S. and striking at them — and the rest of us in The West — in whatever way they can, and Europe is on their doorstep, I don’t understand how you don’t grasp the “escalation” principle.

Tequilamockingbird, would you call the following sentence a fair summing up of your views?: The US should not fight a few lunatics who blew up bombs before because thousands of people are being radicalized and galvanized into hating the U.S.

If it is a fair summing up, I would point out that there is substantially no difference between it & the following sentence: The US should not fight terrorists because fighting terrorists causes young Muslims to become terrorists.

My earlier hypothetical question: Assuming the world is going to be dominated, what entity would you have as the dominator?”

Tequilamockingbird: A huge, loud, unequivocal “NONE OF THE ABOVE”.

Assuming the world is going to be dominated”, how would you feel about it being dominated by the U.S.? Any qualms there? Or is the natural goodness of the U.S. the way the world should go? It’s by no means an exact parallel, but do you see any comparisons there with Nazi Germany and its belief in the superiority of the Aryans?

Sorry, tequilamockingbird, I don’t have a “world domination theory” & therefore the question is meaningless when directed at me. I was merely curious & still am, since you do have such a theory, what entity you think the world would be best dominated by. I see you are also concerned about the US taking Canadian water. I’m interested in just how you think the US might take it — military force, perhaps?

I am really not sure what even my own personal views are re: Iraq, let alone JM’s. My position is really simple: Osama bin Laden made Iraq central (as did Mr. Hussein by his invasion of Kuwait). I am all for debating the pros and cons of invasion. What I think must be stopped is the idea that Iraq is peripheral or tangential or unessential in the War on Terror.

I, too, am relatively new to the Blogosphere. How Neo-neocon manages to produce such a professional site eludes me. But my comments re: your lack of a blog merely reveals my frustration, since you give me no place to visit to get to know your thoughts more thoroughly, or to engage you more directly. My comment was not meant as a slam.

Curiously, the more I do this the LESS I think I should be doing it. Not for want of skill or aptitude, but for want of necessity: My voice is cloned millions of times over, I am afraid. Adding another blog to the etherworld is just more superfluity. I subsist solely on being a redundancy.

Let others speak if all I can say is more of the same. Forsooth, it is nearly impossible to be original, don’t you think?

Blessings,

BG

tequilamockingbird

john: Thanks for the good thoughts. I agree; I’m sure we have lots of common ground. The respect is mutual. Thank you. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.

But I guess we’re obliged to get back to the differences.

“Saddam killed every Islamic fundamentalist he could get his hands on, because he didn’t want the people’s loyalty directed to any cause but the cult of Saddam.”

I surrender. That was wrong. I hope, in return, you’ll admit that Saddam — how shall I put this — “discouraged” Islamic fundamentalism (I myself would consider the prospect of beheading pretty discouraging). While he may have supported these guys’ aims — Death to the Great Satan — Saddam’s Iraq was generally hostile to Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq was in no way an Islamic fundamentalist state.

If there are radical Muslims preaching jihad in Dayton, Ohio, is the U.S. “harboring terrorists”? Show me the connection. Saddam may have agreed with them and tolerated their presence. I’m not trying to portray Saddam as a dedicated anti-terrorist.

“I’ve seen & heard the same sort of assertion many times. But it’s wishful thinking & demonstrably untrue. But it is a cherished anti-war sentiment & anti-warriors cling to it like shipwrecked sailors.”

Well, john, I think it’s semantics again. I’ll agree with you that I was wrong in asserting that he killed every (whatever it was) he got his hands on. Will you admit in return that he (SH) brooked no rivalry to the cult of Saddam, and that Islamic fundamentalism (Islamofascism?) was not an important force in Saddam’s Iraq?

“My objection was not with “hellscape.” It was the linking of “hellscape” with “world” to imply a worldwide conflagration brought on by Bush. I find that sort of overexcited hyperbolic implication very typical of Bush-haters.”

I’m proud of my credentials as a bona fide Bush-hater, but it’s not personal; it’s a hatred of the Bush administration and their loathsome objectives. My enmity is not with the monkey but with the organ-grinder.

The phrase “worldwide hellscape” is overblown — so far — I admit. But we in Europe always have this in the back of our minds whenever we buy a subway, rail, or air ticket — is one of these backpack-wearing fellow travellers 🙂 a suicide bomber? As these jihadis learn their trade in combat with U.S. special forces, Europe is going to be the first and most vulnerable target of their graduates.

“Usually it turns out that if it’s a war they approve of, civilian casualties turn out to be a regrettable necessity. If it’s a war of which they disapprove then civilian deaths become proof of the present Iraq war’s immorality.”

Undeniable. I agree completely. If you agree with the aims and purposes of WW II, for example, in which my father enlisted the day after Canada joined Britain in the war (two-years-plus before Germany declared war on the U.S, not the other way around — the Pearl Harbor sealed Japan’s fate, but when would Joe Kennedy and his fellow pro-Hitler war profiteers have gotten around to declaring war on Germany?), civilian casualties, while regrettable, are irrelevant. Modern warfare has provided more accurate targeting and rendered wholesale bombing more repugnant to decent people, but these things have to be accepted in a just cause — like defending the world.

This is not WW II. This is an unjust and agressive war of choice being waged for imperialistic reasons. I’m not arguing with U.S. policy in Afghanistan as a response to 9/11! I’m not arguing that there aren’t horrible and unintended consequences of necessary wars! The invasion of Iraq was illegitimate and unjustified, so for every death — every death, on either side — the blood is on the hands of the agressors.

“So again I ask you: If, as you claim, the present Iraq war is causing & will cause “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” terror attacks, how do you explain the “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” terror attacks before the present Iraq war?”

God, john, you sound as though you believe the world is more safe because of Iraq. If a few lunatics blew up bombs before, and now thousands of people are being radicalized and galvanized into hating the U.S. and striking at them — and the rest of us in The West — in whatever way they can, and Europe is on their doorstep, I don’t understand how you don’t grasp the “escalation” principle.

“The US should not fight terrorists because fighting terrorists causes young Muslims to become terrorists.

“Is there any part of the preceding sentence with which you disagree?

Well, yeah. The whole thing. Let’s start with your first principal clause: “The US should not fight terrorists”. Sorry, that’s wrong at the get-go. I never said that, I never implied that, and I never will. Let me put it this way: The US should not wage unjust and unjustified wars.

My “world domination” theory is now about 24 hours old. I just started typing, and logic seemed to move in that direction. I had never before even thought of that. To call my theory “inchoate” would be an understatement.

People’s minds change according to their experience — media, conversations with friends, etc. Until Cindy Sheehan, I considered setting a date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq completely untenable: If you announce the date you’re going to withdraw, your enemy just has to wait you out. That’s not to say that CS convinced me; far from it. It started me thinking about something I hadn’t thought about before. I was glad to see her interfere with The Big Guy’s five-week idyll, but I had never considered her premise. I became more open to the idea and started thinking about something that hadn’t occurred to me before. I read stuff by people like Gen. Odom and started to think that withdrawal was not only an option, it might be the best way out.

That was months before my “world domination” theory. Life is an oddysey. Things change, except for those whose minds are closed.

“Assuming the world is going to be dominated, what entity would you have as the dominator?”

A huge, loud, unequivocal “NONE OF THE ABOVE”.

Here’s something that’s been in the back of my mind for the last 20-plus years. The U.S. is wasting and polluting its groundwater at an enormous rate. It’s been irrigating the desert for most of the last century. Everyone in Las Vegas, Phoenix — or San Antonio — feels it’s not a right but an obligation to have a lawn and a swimming pool. Canada has the world’s largest sources of fresh water. It’ll take decades, but the time is coming when the U.S. will need Canada’s water. When that time comes, I’m sure they would prefer a political settlement — that Canada will abdicate its sovereignty without kicking up too much of a fuss — but when push comes to shove and they need it, they’ll take it.

“Assuming the world is going to be dominated”, how would you feel about it being dominated by the U.S.? Any qualms there? Or is the natural goodness of the U.S. the way the world should go?

It’s by no means an exact parallel, but do you see any comparisons there with Nazi Germany and its belief in the superiority of the Aryans?

*****

Contratimes:

Thank you for your kind words. It seems you’re on jm’s side of the argument, but that’s fine. In the wild world of neo-neocon, the odds against me are much greater than that. (And I’m not complaining. I’m hanging out here deliberately to be exposed to ideas that are different to my own. I don’t hang out in wacko leftist circles.)

As you’ve noted, I’m trying to — well, “escape” is not the right word, because I’ve enjoyed my exchange with jm; if I didn’t, I’d have left.

I don’t have the time or the energy to fight a two-front war, I’m afraid.

I never even visited a blog until about two months ago, when I stumbled on neo-neocon (and had a not particularly auspicious start; I was attacked from all sides. I don’t remember if jm was among my antagonists). I’m a total newbie, so a blog of my own is something I don’t aspire to. Jeez, just maintaining this two-man conversation has been tough. How jm deals with two, three, and more is mind-boggling.

But thanks.

tequilamockingbird

Sadly, it seems, I am stepping into a genial and thoughtful argument as it draws to a close.

First, I am at a loss that any person should think that Iraq and 9/11 are unrelated. In fact, there is a CAUSAL link between Iraq and 9/11. Doubt me? Alright. Let me prove my point.

Can we all agree that ObL and Al Qaida are responsible for the attacks on America in September 2001? If so, then who better to tell us why 9/11 happened than ObL, no?

Here is what ObL said in his 1998 fatwa against the US:

“First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

“The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. …”

Hence, the only conclusion one can draw is that IRAQ is the reason America was attacked. In short, Iraq is not only centrally but causally linked to 9/11.

The only debatable point then is whether invading Iraq was the right strategy in the War on Terror. But it is either ignorance or sheer propaganda (or something even more devilish, like self-deception), that insists that Iraq is not massively linked to 9/11.

(In fact, had Saddam Hussein never invaded Kuwait, the entire America/Iraq conflict would never have begun, and thus we would not be talking about ObL right now. Of course, we could follow the causal chain all the way back to Adam and Eve, but that would be fruitless, no?)

Second, it is curious to note that there is a tremendous amount of concern about America, through its military actions, producing “more terrorists”. That may indeed be cause for concern, if in fact it is true. But what is overlooked is also of concern: that survivors of terrorist attacks, like the orphaned children of 9/11 or those left fatherless after a roadside bomb kills an American father/soldier, also may grow into terrorists. Do we think that those children whose parents were killed in 9/11 will be Islamic apologists in a few years? Do we think that the victims of the Spain attacks will grow up blaming themselves? The answer no doubt to both questions is yes and no: Some victims will be sympathetic to their attackers, others will not. My suspicion is that the same may be said of victims of America’s alleged aggression.

Two quick thoughts: The only reason GB I was able to build a “viable” coalition in the “first” Gulf War was because he promised not to depose Hussein or invade Baghdad. To compare his coalition with his son’s is patently silly: their objectives were completely different. Besides, had GWB had a larger coalition than his dad’s — with France and Russia and China and South Africa in hearty support — Bush would still be vilified by those who scoff at his current coalition.

Lastly, it is hard to posit “World Domination” when considering American politics. Why? Because presidents and congresses come and go: they change every two, four, and six years. A president elected knows that the first term is in large part consumed by campaigning for the next. If there is any criticism that should be leveled at America it is this: Its foreign policy CHANGES too often, and is contingent upon who has won – usually for a short term (eight years max) – control of the White House and Congress. The democratic process often endangers stability in world affairs. As such, it is impossible for such an elastic political process to have a strategy of world domination.

Do with this as you will. I appreciate the passion and thoroughness of the exchange between Mr. Moulder (nice blog) and Tequilamockingbird (you should have a blog. Not having one is sort of cheating.)

Peace to you all,

BG

Tequilamockingbird: I was arguing that it wasn’t proven that they acted in concert with Saddam. That’s different than “harboring”, which of course is the term you used.

Saddam harbored wanted terrorists. These were fugitives wanted by a variety of countries for multiple murders & Saddam let them stay in his country, even providing housing & a money allowance for at least one that it is known about. I’m sure there was even more to his relationships with these murderers, especially considering the murderous ruthlessness of Saddam himself, but nothing provable as in a court of law. Your original statement was:

Saddam killed every Islamic fundamentalist he could get his hands on, because he didn’t want the people’s loyalty directed to any cause but the cult of Saddam.

I’ve seen & heard the same sort of assertion many times. But it’s wishful thinking & demonstrably untrue. But it is a cherished anti-war sentiment & anti-warriors cling to it like shipwrecked sailors.

You: “Do you really think it is possible to conduct war without civilian deaths?” Of course not, John, but once again, I didn’t say that I did. I used the quoted passage to justify my use of the word “hellscape”, that there were tens of thousands of Iraqi dead as well as U.S. troops.

My objection was not with “hellscape.” It was the linking of “hellscape” with “world” to imply a worldwide conflagration brought on by Bush. I find that sort of overexcited hyperbolic implication very typical of Bush-haters.

You: Have you seen the “Ride of the Valkyrie” sequence in “Apocalypse Now”? Anything like that happening in Iraq these days, do you think? “How do you shoot women and children?” “Easy: You just don’t lead ’em so much.” 20,000-plus dead Iraqi civilians, but hey, who’s counting? They’re just Iraqis. A little closer to “hellscape” than just counting U.S. troops?

Frequently, when anti-warriors are pinned down, like when I pointed out that, as wars go, there really weren’t very many military casualties in Iraq, an anti-warrior will play the “civilian casualty” card. That’s why I always start such debates by getting on record the anti-warrior’s viewpoint on wars in general. Usually it turns out that if it’s a war they approve of, civilian casualties turn out to be a regrettable necessity. If it’s a war of which they disapprove then civilian deaths become proof of the present Iraq war’s immorality.

Also, the civilian deaths in Iraq are always implicitly characterized as caused solely by Coalition occupation forces. But many of these civilians died during the invasion of Iraq & the initial destruction of Saddam’s military & many others were caused entirely by terrorist actions, such as when young Iraqi men are blown up at military & police recruiting stations. One thing is for certain, there would be few to none civilian deaths now if the terrorists would cease their terrorism.

Me, in an earlier comment: “There were plenty of terrorist attacks before the present war in Iraq. How do you explain those?”

You: Simple. There are a lot of violent hate-filled lunatics out there. Some of them are “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” (we can go back to “Islamofascist” for shorthand purposes, I think, as long as we recognize each other’s interpretations of the term). Some of them are Irish republicans; some of them are Irish loyalists. Some of them are U.S. good old boys like Timothy McVeigh.

I believe our debate here is about the “politicized Islamic fundamentalists.” You wrote … I’m referring to the terrorist actions like the bombings in Madrid and London and others — and others certain to come, including inside the U.S. — that will be caused by the hatred fostered by the invasion of Iraq.

So again I ask you: If, as you claim, the present Iraq war is causing & will cause “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” terror attacks, how do you explain the “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” terror attacks before the present Iraq war?

I asked you, “Could you sum up your real philosophy in one sentence?” And you replied, “No.” Well then, let me take a different approach — correct the wrong parts of the following sentence:

The US should not fight terrorists because fighting terrorists causes young Muslims to become terrorists.

Is there any part of the preceding sentence with which you disagree?

I found your “world domination” theory to be interesting. Let me pose a hypothetical question: Assuming the world is going to be dominated, what entity would you have as the dominator?

Btw, thanks for the compliment on my blog.

“Do you really think it is possible to conduct war without civilian deaths?” Of course not, John, but once again, I didn’t say that I did. I used the quoted passage to justify my use of the word “hellscape”, that there were tens of thousands of Iraqi dead as well as U.S. troops.

“There were plenty of terrorist attacks before the present war in Iraq. How do you explain those?”

Simple. There are a lot of violent hate-filled lunatics out there. Some of them are “politicized Islamic fundamentalists” (we can go back to “Islamofascist” for shorthand purposes, I think, as long as we recognize each other’s interpretations of the term). Some of them are Irish republicans; some of them are Irish loyalists. Some of them are U.S. good old boys like Timothy McVeigh.

“Could you sum up your real philosophy in one sentence?” No.

“Now they have a new buzzword: Iraq.” I think it’s more than a buzzword; it’s inflamed Muslim opinion throughout the world. If I’m radicalized into opposition of the war, what’s it like for hotheaded young Muslims attending Madrasses in Pakistan or listening to radical clerics in London or Dayton, Ohio? I’m not going to go out and plant any bombs, let alone wrap myself up in them. Some of them already have. More of them will.

Without quoting any references, I’ll try to express how I feel about it.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq I considered myself to be pretty well informed, but not super interested in politics. I’m Canadian. If I were American, my leanings would be Democratic, but I’m not a left-wing wacko (at least I don’t think I am). I didn’t like Reagan, but I wasn’t real big on Carter either. I had no complaints with Bush I, and I thought he waged GW I very skillfully. I liked Clinton; I just wish he could have kept his pants zipped. The invasion of Iraq radicalized me.

I was stunned by 9/11. It was 7:30 on the West Coast when a girlfriend called me from North Carolina in tears, saying “My country is under attack.” Unbelievable. There was a tiny, insignificant number of terrorists and fanatical America haters around the world who didn’t sympathize deeply with the U.S. on that day. (I haven’t personally known or even heard of anyone who didn’t). The headline in “Le Monde” was “We are all Americans.”

Like a lot of people, I was worried that Bush would take violent and precipitate action. I had never heard of ObL or AQ, but it rapidly became apparent that they were indeed the perpetrators, and they were being harbored by the Taliban. Fine: Go get ’em!

Funny, though. The news was saturated with ObL and AQ through November, December, January, and then the trail seemed to peter out in the hills of Afghanistan. The Administration made optimistic noises, but as weeks dragged into months without ObL or Omar being flushed out, surprisingly, there seemed to be less and less enthusiasm from the White House; Afghanistan slowly seemed to fade off the radar screen. As spring became summer, I started hearing the word “Saddam” more and more.

I’d never heard of PNAC at that time. But I came to realize that it had been waiting for its chance for almost a decade, and that PNAC and similar or allied conservative movements knew from the day Bush was appointed that their hour had come, and all they needed was a pretext. Saddam was mentioned as a potential target at a White House meeting on 9/12. Wolfowitz was ready, and he pressed his argument.

After that, it was just a matter of time. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any so-called “War on Terror”. (I hate that expression; you can’t make war on a noun, be it Poverty or Drugs or Terror.) It was the culmination of a decade of preparation by a group of people who had gained ascendancy in the Administration, and their ideological allies like Kristol and Perle. (I shudder inwardly when I see Perle’s cold, dead, hooded eyes on TV).

All that remained was to dupe the American public — screw the rest of the world; Bush made his contempt for world opinion plain — into thinking that there was some justification for the grand plan, some way to sell it to the suckers. And they found their mantra: “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. That was the phrase that did it for them. (It wasn’t new; PNAC had been tossing it around for years).

If they had said, “We’re going to embark on a bloody years-long invasion and occupation of Iraq, and we’re going to lose 2,000-plus American lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bring freedom and democracy to the oppressed Iraqi people, and then, as the Iraquis stand up, we’re going to stand down and come back home”, they would have been denounced as lunatics and Bush would have been forced out of office.

The plan of PNAC et al, I believe, is to establish and nurture a puppet government in Iraq (something the U.S. has had considerable experience with in the last 60 years) which would guarantee a secure supply of oil. The Saudis are shaky, Iran is Iran, Venezuela has Chavez.

As well, the U.S. could establish military fortresses that would serve as bases for future attacks on the Middle East enemy du jour and to keep Iraqi dissidents in line and to line, and an enormous fortified embassy that could serve as a spy center and listening center that could (as I’ve said before, but I like the image) hear a pin drop from Cairo to Kandahar.

That should ensure U.S. world domination for decades to come. Now, about those pesky and fertile Chinese … well, that’s for the next generation of right-thinkers to deal with, like Perle acolyte David Frum (he’s even getting the eye thing pretty close).

We (meaning the world) have been had by a small group of American megalomaniacs. And there’s a rather larger group of Americans who don’t mind at all the idea of U.S. world domination. Plenty of the people on this blog are contemptuous of world opinion, multilateral action, and international cooperation.

I’ve seen Clinton’s term described as “benevolent hegemony”. That’s a lot more palatable to the rest of the world than a belligerent, arrogant, aggressive, omnipotent hegemony which is willing to impose its will by force on a unilateral world.

Can’t we all just get along?

Writing certainly helps to crystallize one’s thoughts. I’ve only just developed this “world domination” theory while writing this. So far, it eems eminently sensible.

tequilamockingbird

p.s. If you want to reply, fine; but I think we should leave this cozy little den and resume our discussion somewhere in public.