I wouldn’t. The doctrine of forcibly installing the rule of shariah law over the whole world is all Islam, mainstream Islam. The only ones who don’t support the imperialistic agenda integral to Islam are those that don’t take Islam seriously–the Muslim world’s equivalent of Cafeteria Christians, but they are a far smaller proportion, and seldom vocal, for fear of their lives.

“For neocons/liberals, the historic tragedy of the Iraq mission is that (arguably) there was a real opportunity in Iraq to establish a model of liberal reform in the heart of the Middle East with a pluralistic society. Iraq is not Egypt.”

Other people have mentioned the backsliding of Turkey in this thread. I think Turkey is a sobering example that should wean whoever contemplates it of any fantasies of “liberalization” and “a pluralistic society” anywhere in the Muslim world. Turkey used to be the brightest hope of modern, moderate and secularized Islam, and now it has succumbed to the superior demography of the mainstream Islam (see above), just as it has happened in Lebanon (once Christian-majority, now under the thrall of both Sunni and Shia jihadism) and the Muslim colonial settlements in Western Europe (no-go zones for any non-Muslims, where women not dressed properly can expect the Lara Logan treatment–in Europe, not in Egypt!).

This tree could never bear the fruit you want it to bear. It was a colossal waste of men, money and materials to send troops abroad after 9/11. It is irrational to keep thinking within the paradigm of state-conflict while the free world’s homelands–India, Israel, Western Europe, and did I mention Dearbornistan, Michigan?–are themselves teeming with enemy colonists. Maybe in a couple of decades or so the petrodollar states bankrolling the worldwide jihad will need to be addressed, but for the time being, home is where the war is taking place.

World politics has been tied to the “one world, one global village” thinking about events ever since 1914 at least, but today this kind of thinking makes things so much worse. Though the problem besetting all the free nations, the problem of Islamic imperialists and its Marxist enabler-allies, is global, the only way to deal with it is locally, each nation-state separately as best it can. This is also why supranational organizations like the U.N. are part of the problem.

I would differentiate between Islam with its multiple strains and Qutbist political Islam that is seeking to clear the field.

Democracy can be reduced to the will of the mob. With that understanding, also a suspicion articulated by our Founding Fathers, I normally use the term ‘liberalise’, which implies an enshrined set of values together with popular will, rather than ‘democratize’.

I disagree that ‘winning hearts and minds’ means ‘pay the Danegeld’. Winning hearts and minds is a tactic, not a strategy. I agree that the tactic of winning hearts and minds should be in the service of winning the war of ideas, not currying favor for the sake of currying favor.

For neocons/liberals, the historic tragedy of the Iraq mission is that (arguably) there was a real opportunity in Iraq to establish a model of liberal reform in the heart of the Middle East with a pluralistic society. Iraq is not Egypt. We had a promising ‘golden hour’ in the initial post-war period of OIF where conditions, including the expectations and belief of Iraqis, were in our favor. But we fell short and the golden hour passed.

Liberal reform does not have equal chance of success everywhere and not with instantaneous success anywhere. Due to persistent Iraqi non-compliance with the UNSC resolutions and the existing US/UN mission in Iraq, however, the Iraq situation invited Western intervention. Our hope for Iraq in replacing the model autocrat in Saddam was that if we could end the 360-degree threat of Iraq to all its neighbors, make liberal reform work in the relatively promising conditions of Iraq, then given Iraq’s influence in the region, perhaps an intra-regional trend could take root and spread from Iraq.

According to the NY Times, there also appears to have been a 2nd-chance ‘golden hour’ in the post-Surge period, which America had paid for dearly, but Obama fumbled it away:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?smid=pl-share

Yes, lament the lives and treasury expended on learning the hard way that Democracy as a reflection of the Will of the People is inevitably going to lead to shariah-ruled jihadist states, because that is the Will of the People, the people, not just “the leaders” or “an extreme and vocal minority” as the Narrative has always put it. But do not lament that this path had to be taken, for it could never have been otherwise–in 2001 the truthful message would simply have been rejected even by those not debilitated by appeasocratic stupidity.

The guilty today are not those who once used to be neocons, but those who still haven’t learned the lessons that were necessary for abandoning neoconism. I’m talking about anyone who believes the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been “making the people over there hate us.” Whether on the Marxist Left or on the Buchananite Right, these are appeasers and are responsible more than anyone else for the advance of Islamic imperialism, rewarding its aggression with capitulation. It’s time to leave both appeasement and neocon fantasies behind and realize that the way to peace lies in the free nations’ standing up to their exclusive national rights which trump everything and must run roughshod over any Islamic imperialist onslaught made on their soil.

The forthcoming age, if it is not to be an age of dhimmitude or of genocide brought about by a belated and therefore acute reaction to dhimmitude, will have to be an age of mass expulsions. Once the unrealistic option of turning Islamic societies to free ones by means of democracy is relinquished, and the cowardly and self-defeating philosophy of “We must have done something to make them hate us, let’s try to win their hearts and minds” (pay the Danegeld, in other words) is rejected, the only route left is national and cultural survivalism that expunges any threat to it by non-genocidal yet brutal action.

As always you stick beside liars, just what Iraq have right now bunch of lairs, thugs, corrupted gangster. Hussein Kamel al-Majid’s make his case to be believed who dreamed to be ruler for Iraq but unfortunately his dream were vanished with his proved stupidly all long his job from very small police guy to top Military post after marry the tyrant daughter.
Whoever responsible for proving tyrant piles of WOD which clearly the job that hold to UN agency who were staring demolishing, destroying, taken off sites and installed 24 surveillance monitoring system in all sites, we all that there is one criminal on top of al-Majid criminals who is tyrant Saddam. But 2o millions Iraqis rewinds their life for one criminal, even after 10 years of war that we hoped to see Al-Ojah town vanished as the source of evils that control Iraq for 35 years what we saw that US protecting that town and the resident there!!!!

Iraq’s WMD programs and intent were presumed after the Gulf War. It was never UNSCOM’s responsibillity to prove Iraq possessed WMD. UNSCOM’s role was to verify Iraq’s compliance with the UNSC resolutions. It was Iraq’s responsibility to prove compliance, and therefore rehabilitated and no longer guilty. Iraq never did that.

General Hussein Kamel al-Majid’s revelation in 1995 that Iraq had successfully hidden weapons stocks only raised the standard of compliance imposed on Iraq. As I said, Saddam could and should have cleared the UNSC resolutions on Iraq in 1991-92. Why didn’t he?

I recommend the ‘Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq’:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

You’re talking about giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt after he had long lost any benefit of our doubt. He could and should have cleared the UNSC resolutions in 1991-92. The Clinton admin had established Iraq had ambiguous links to al Qaeda, which were enough given his presumption of guilt and our heightened standard of care after 9/11, but also clear links to other terrorist groups plus Saddam’s own unconventional capability. Saddam had even tried to assassinate the 1st President Bush when he visited Kuwait.

It certainly didn’t help Saddam look any less guilty when his supporters welcomed al Qaeda’s help to fight the US-led occupation.

From Clinton’s statement accompanying the Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 98:
“The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law- abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.”

That is the approach to the Iraqi people and hope for Iraq with which America began its post-war occupation of Iraq.

You can blame Shiites for their ties with Iran and the Shia insurgency, but the Sunnis had a real opportunity at the beginning of the occupation to be a healthy partner in the US-led nation-building of the post-Saddam Iraq. What the heck possessed the Sunnis to accept the help of al Qaeda and fight the coalition? I believe there was a ‘golden hour’ in Iraq where Clinton and Bush’s faith in all the Iraqi peoples could have been rewarded, if all the Iraqi peoples had come together to help us help Iraq. But the Sunnis made an all-time miscalculation by fighting the American post-war efforts, resulting in a tragedy of lost opportunities, not to mention lost lives and great suffering.

America’s faith in the Iraqi people is dismissed as naive now, but once upon a time, we believed Iraq could become a ‘beacon on the hill’ for the region.

Eric,
UNSCOM team telling at a time there are no WOD as what asked in time they requests any info available with CIA may lead to their claims there were WOD?

May it’s important to point out that some team members actually not specialists in the field, one of them like David Kay he purely spy guy. In one of the team visits inside Baghdad David Kay acting like Rambo when he tried to jump over high brick fence of the site which very unwise and unprofessional and stupid thing to do especially with team of professionals an representing UN.

UNMOVIC was in Iraq for 4 months (Nov 02 – Mar 03) before the start of OIF. President Bush decided on OIF based on Hans Blix’s report to the UN in Feb 03, or the 3 month mark, that showed Iraq was non-compliant.

Why did Bush conclude UNMOVIC had finished its job with Blix’s Feb 03 report while Blix was requesting an indefinite number of additional “months” in Iraq for UNMOVIC? Because Bush understood UNMOVIC was a compliance test for Saddam’s regime and Blix’s Feb 03 report to the UN was conclusive proof that Iraq remained non-compliant. In opposition, Blix interpreted UNMOVIC’s function to be an investigation of Iraq’s possession of WMD.

* I discuss the fundamental definitional disagreement in the public controversy over OIF here: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-of-definition-in-iraq.html

Clinton’s criticism of Bush implies that he disagrees with Bush’s understanding of UNMOVIC and instead supports Blix’s interpretation of UNMOVIC’s function. However, Bush’s understanding of UNMOVIC followed Clinton’s precedent with UNSCOM: Clinton decided to bomb Iraq in Op Desert Fox based on a * 3 week * compliance test by UNSCOM. The same as Bush understood with UNMOVIC, Clinton understood UNSCOM was a compliance test for Saddam’s regime – NOT an investigation of Iraq’s possession of WMD.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Clinton announcing Op Desert Fox, Dec 98: “Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq’s cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM’s chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan. . . . If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.”

So, not only did Clinton deem 3 weeks was sufficient for UNSCOM to prove Iraq’s non-compliance, Clinton declared it was urgently necessary to bomb Iraq as soon as possible in order not to allow Saddam time to “disperse his forces and protect his weapons”. Yet Clinton criticizes Bush for giving 3 or 4 months to UNMOVIC’s compliance test and not granting the indefinite additional “months” requested by Blix, despite that Bush used the same compliance test as Clinton and Clinton deemed as President that rapid military action was necessary as soon as he concluded Iraq was non-compliant.

Saddam had terrible, terrible flaws and was a terrible tyrant. But one of the things he did not do was challenge the United States through terrorism, so the connection between the former regime and Al Qaeda and international terrorism directed against the United States particular and the West generally could not be established…

…….

What has happened is, in fact, a large number of so-called … jihadist groups have been empowered as a result of the continuing large scale American military presence in Iraq. And in the process, the threat of terrorism has increased.

The Occupation of Iraq, by Alli A. Allawi

Eric, agreed, the problem when US depend on crooks who were well known before and after they more Iranian than Iraqis in their heart and mind, resulting Iran meddling inside Iraq made the case for US took all the blame for series of killing by Iranian created and backing terrorists groups like Hizallah Iraq branch, Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, most importantly Badar militia