We have victory in Iraq due to our brave military members, the brave Iraqi’s who stood and fought for their country, and President Bush. But where is the MSM on this great day?
Iraqi government TV has been playing patriotic music to celebrate the U.S. military withdrawal from cities, towns and villages across the country, officially set to be completed by Tuesday June 30th.
Iraqi military vehicles were also covered with flowers to celebrate the event, and military parades, complete with band music, were organized in Diyala and Diwania provinces.
The government declared a “Day of National Sovereignty” to mark the event, and has invited ordinary citizens to join evening celebrations at Baghdad’s Zawra Park for a festival of music and poetry.
Interior Minister Jawad Boulani told journalists the U.S. withdrawal is almost complete and Iraqi forces are capable of maintaining order across the country.
He says he believes Iraq’s security situation is under control. “I do not think we need to declare a curfew,” he insisted.
Why, their hiding because they said this day would never come. The left and the MSM (synonymous really) believed Bush would ruin everything he touches and now that they have been proven wrong they just ignore it or believe Obama fixed it, by doing the same thing as Bush of course, but why ruin a fantasy. They tell us all that Obama inherited this recession, its not his fault while at the same time trying to sell the case that he did not inherit the Bush victory in Iraq….it’s all him baby…..sigh.
Anyways, congrats to the Iraqi’s for proving that human beings, no matter where they live, DO want to live in freedom.
See author page
June 30 is being declared a national public holiday in Iraq… while the scant media coverage of this date may not parallel its significance, Newsy provides a summary of the media’s coverage thus far.
I read about it on Yahoo! this morning and was so elated, I text messaged all my friends!
Nice to see site up and running again, btw!
Don’t sign up for the health program; we need to have somebody still alive 20 years from now tostand up and tell the truth about June 29, 2009.
I’m sure if it had been a Saigon type withdrawal all three alphabet news anchors would have been live from Baghdad, and would have done interviews with the defacto dictator whom ever they may have been
They are reporting it – and everyone agrees that this is wonderful! The only argument is who’s getting the credit. I say it’s the men and women in US military uniform.
old news or new news….it’s GREAT NEWS !!!!
I’m going to church today to pray for those who gave everthing, those who gave their limbs and those who returned home with scars that can’t be seen.
Bush 43, thank you.
Victory? Who is saying it is a victory???
How about the Iraqi premiere just a couple of days ago? Just as he called the most recent election another Iraq victory this past Feb.
Certainly the Iraqis, hanging on to their new government, consider it a victory.
Who’s not considering it a victory is you liberal/progressives… who fought tooth and nail for defeat. The only way you’ll claim it as such is if you can figure out a way to give Obama the kudos…. which requires “the willing suspension of disbelief”.
Commenters like herman will never cease nay-saying. There will be further setbacks and future negative headlines because it’s part of the process (and herman will be happy to be there, flapping his arms about, hyping how the sky is falling; I’m sure he’s been doing so since 2003, every single step of the way); but the process continues, and it continues to trend in a positive direction.
MataHarley,
No. Tell me someone on our side, the armed forces that says it is a victory, not a politician.
Has Petraeus, Odierno, any of the other Generals called it victory? You even has Cheney calling the withdrawal ‘a waste of’ US troops.
Also, you now have celebrations not of victory is Iraq, but celebrations of our leaving Iraq.
How does all that square with Iraq having victory???
Your defining victory via “elections” is highly debatable. If you followed the distribution of political power in Iraq you’d see it’s marred by a lack of equality, representation, and justice. You’d of course say: “It’s not perfect, but a beginning”. Quite simply, you can’t equate that with victory–especially when it’s not articulated by our higher brass.
Herman, what’s all this “I’m” celebrating, “I’m” defining an election as victory crap? You asked a simple question… who is calling Iraq a victory. I gave you the simple answer. The Iraqis.
If they hold on to their government and beat down any upcoming attempted seizures by jihad thugs and Saddam ex-pats, they will continue their success and victory.
The US and coalition military have many successes… from toppling Saddam to each and every time the Iraqis improve in defending themselves, and each time they thwart an attack, or confiscate a weapons cache. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve already won, and continue winning daily. The long term victory is up to Iraqis.
Considering how your side loves to parse words, I doubt any official will label Iraq a victory, as they know the fragility of a new government, and the enemy that prays for their downfall. That enemy would be, of course, both the jihad movements/Saddam ex-pats, and the US Democrat Party.
I’m simply saying, where is our military brass that is declaring victory. Curt has taken it upon himself to declare it.
herman,
Iraq will be dysfunctional for years to come. It’s only been 6 years, for crissakes!!! In the absence of an insurgency and foreign elements fomenting chaos and not wanting to see democracy take root, it amazes me how much has been accomplished in a country that saw 30 years of rule under Saddam’s thumbnail. Of course “change” won’t happen overnight. It takes an average 4 years just to graduate from college with a undergrad degree. The business in Iraq is over when it’s over, and not a day sooner. Not unless we want to set expiration dates on all future conflicts.
The point is, Bush “stayed the course”, by staying in Iraq until we left on “our” terms, and not the enemy’s. There will be no peace treaty signing, no ceremonial surrender from those we fought and defeated in Iraq. There is no specific “victory day”, for us; of when we actually “won”. I think the situation in Iraq is comprised of different phases; and there will be future such “phases”, as life itself is a continually evolving process.
There will be future setbacks in between continuing successes.
Developing democracy in a country that’s never known it is a process.
Less than that, Word. The Iraqis didn’t elect their permanent government representatives until October, 2005. Prior to that it was an interim government, while they finessed their Constitution from scratch and sussed out the groundwork.
That means it’s just three and a half years. We’re over two centuries in, and still trying to get it right.
Okay, 6 years for crissakes; yet Curt has declared victory …prematurely, then.
It’s already been 6 years- not talking about another 6 years (although I believe it will take another generation or two to get to your apparent level of standards).
Curt’s not alone in this; and others months ago have been echoing the same sentiments.
The fact that we are even in a position to leave Iraq, under the current conditions, is a victory.
What the hell do you think we’ve been trying to do, by restoring infrastructure, training security forces, etc.?
You’re right Mata. But along the lines I was thinking of, is “Mission Accomplished” of major combat operations, as the first victory (I think of the insurgency as another phase of the war in Iraq). The critics were lining up, wailing about the body count back then, too.
@MataHarley:
I’m totally with you guys – this is a great victory. But am I reading you correctly as saying, “We’ve accomplished our mission, and now it’s time for a steady, gradual withdrawal” ???
THAT’S WHAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN SAYING FOR A WHILE NOW…
http://barleymash.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-iraq-war.html
Just look at the two Presidential platforms in the last election….. Obama = timed withdrawal, McCain = 100 years.
So, now that both sides are in agreement, with victory declared, and withdrawal in place – why the partisan rhetoric?
Cary, you are reading incorrectly. A withdrawal, as conditions on the ground dictate. If they hit an onslaught, and need the US military, we stay at their request… as per the SOFA. There is no “slow, steady, gradual” to it. Dictated by on the ground demands.
And that is the big difference between what the left has been saying. They wanted “slow, steady, gradual” withdrawal in 2006… which would have guaranteed a failed Iraq. They also wanted a “slow, steady, gradual” withdrawal no matter what the conditions on the ground were…. which also can result in a failed Iraq.
That the withdrawal is commencing is as per the Bush plan from the start. Depose Saddam, let the Iraqis get their government together, let them get their security together, then back out as ground events dictate.
The left… like a broken clock… are only correct because the time and ground events are friendly to do exactly what has been planned since day one. And for that, they can take no credit. They fought for defeat.
Part of this is a game of semantics, as voices on the conservative side have also made similar distinctions as barleymash’s has, regarding the war phase having ended, and that what we found ourselves embroiled in soon after Bremer’s arrival was an insurgency brewing.
I think the places where we truly got it right, are places where we had long-term commitments.
Michael Yon also declared Iraq a victory last year; and conservatives also rallied to proclaim a Victory in Iraq Day.
DoD:
Mata:
I asked a simple question, but there is now simple answer. I can say the Iraqis are celebrating our leaving, the end of an occupation, instead of a “victory.”
If the answer were simple, it would be clear, with no dispute …and Curt could marshal significant evidence as witnesses for such a victory. Yet even here at home, your own Dick Cheney is against him here –worrying that withdrawal is concerning. And in Iraq, their celebrations are not tied to “elections”, not to Sadaam’s capture and death, but to our leaving– the end of an occupancy.
The answer is NOT simple, it is open and debatable who is calling for victory. There are few who are.
Word:
He practically is alone; him and a small handful of politicians.
I was on vacation last week, scuba diving with ex-Gitmo detainees in St. Croix. Just trying to catch up.
Didn’t I read somewhere that we won WWII? I know they bury that pretty deep in the History books now, but I’m sure I read it somewhere. Anyway, I know for a fact that we still have troops in Germany and Japan. Hell, I was stationed in Okinawa for a while, I’m pretty sure there were some other people over there with the same uniform I wore. What does pulling our troops out of country have to do with victory?
@herman:
Odierno just said it is a day for all Americans to be proud of all the troops and civilians who worked and sacrificed over the past years. That would include President Bush, btw. So, tell us herman, are you proud?
Oh, can you say that? How about all the Iraqi security personell trained by our troops? How about all the vendors that will no longer be selling their goods to our troops? Or, Iraqis and their children that were treated in our medical facilities? Or the children treated to clothes, sports equipment, school supplies and candy by our troops? How about Iraqi families who made a practice of inviting our troops into their homes for dinner? How about the Iraqis that were financed and guided through their legal, banking, education, hospital, infrastructure systems, etc. by our civilian personell? You think they are celebrating our leaving? I don’t think all Iraqis are as unappreciative of what we sacrificed for their country as you are. Quiveling over a word, try some Preparation H and get back to us.
@Cary:
Now Cary, you and I both know that that is not a fair and accurate representation of what McCain said.
You and I also both know, at least you should know by now, that you won’t get away with that sort of distortion here without being challenged.
Also, in the interest of intellectual honesty it must be pointed out that Obama, and the Left at large, was calling for date certain withdrawal without regard for what was actually happening on the ground.
@Aye Chihuahua:
You are correct, Aye – I was presenting it as a quick summary. McCain’s position was indefinite occupation, even if it meant 100 years.
Obama’s position was a gradual pullout by 2010 – which seems to be happening, be it his doing or not. I don’t think there are many people who believed that wouldn’t change if the the situation there changed drastically. So now we’re at 2012 – not too off at all.
@Cary:
You’re still not being honest about what McCain has repeatedly said regarding Iraq.
Why are you choosing to distort his position?
Aye, I’m not distorting his position, in fact -if his strategical position had been followed in the first place, we may have seen this day much sooner.
I’m pointing out what the political rhetoric has been.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/17/mccain-we-have-succeeded-in-iraq/
What Obama said was that we would complete our pullout by 2010, however making “tactical adjustments” based on what’s happening on the ground in Iraq…
And here we are now – starting our withdrawal, with a completion date of 2010 – with provisions to continue if there is a drastic change (if asked) – everything the left was pushing for to happen is happening, and liberals and conservatives are pleased – yet WE (the Left) were wrong all along?!
Yes… you are wrong all along. As I pointed out, in my earlier comment INRE the broken clock. You liberals wanted to pull out in 2006, when it would mean the fall if Iraq. You were wrong. This withdrawal is going per Bush’s original plan, as preserved in the SOFA negotiated without the chosen zero in Dec 2008. This withdrawal, done in 2006, would have been disasterous.
There is a time and place for everything. Let’s put this in a more simple fashion for you. You can tell me that I need to replace my tires on my car because they will blow out. But my tires are new, with only a few thousand miles on them. Three years later, my tires… now with over 40,000 miles …do indeed blow out. And you go… “see? I was right all along!”
duh wuh
@herman:
What’s the distinction? It’s a “victory”, because the conditions on the ground make it feasible for us to begin withdrawing and allow Iraqi security forces to take charge of protecting their own interests.
@Cary:
Here’s what you said:
Yes, that’s a blatant distortion of what his position has always been.
.
@Cary:
Many of the critics on your side of the fence were calling for withdrawal in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, holding up negative headlines as the reason to pull out and abandon Iraq to an uncertain fate. Democrats in Congress, like Harry Reid, declared the “war is lost”, and attempted to draw up white flag surrender resolutions. Senator Obama opposed the troop surge.
I’m in the middle of Doug Stanton’s “Horse Soldiers”; and it again brings up the perception that the American public doesn’t have the stomach for war nor the political fortitude to sustain losses and setbacks in order to stay on the road to winning.
What happens today has only been made possible by the positive trending in Iraq. It is a victory.
If we’re to honestly get it right, though, then our withdrawal- desirable to everyone- should not be done hastily and recklessly. There has been so much political pressure to do things “on the quick” and rush things. But what is needed is patience, resolve, and a long-term commitment to succeed.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Okay, it may not have been his position, but it’s what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
Courtesy embed by Mata
But this diverts my main point.
@Cary:
In the interest of intellectual honesty here is the entire exchange:
Kindly cite for me where McCain called for “indefinite occupation”.
You state that was his position. If so, it should be easily cited.
McCain repeatedly and consistently said that we would withdraw when conditions on the ground allowed that to happen. No date certain, no calendars, but instead, when the enemy was defeated, when the Iraqis were able to stand on their own, and when the overall success of the mission would not be endangered by doing so.
So, please cite for me where McCain said something other than that.
I’m more interested in getting you to correct your distortions before moving on to other matters.
@Wordsmith:
Aside from a few loons, I think most of us agree on this – including Obama, as recorded on the above YouTube link I provided. And, thankfully, that is not what is happening.
I tended to ignore the “100 year” comment by Cary, Aye… glad you have the patience to revisit this with him. There are many ways to say “we stay until the job is done, and if the Iraqis want us to have a permanent base there, we’d be happy to”. (which they don’t, and we’re cool with that too)
Then, of course, the lib/progressives never can seem to grasp what “the job is done” means… despite the fact they have been told since day one, over and over, that it means when the Iraqis have a government and security in place, and are partners in intel and world trading.
For those that want “exit strategies”, let me ask this. On what day are you going to buy your next car? Or perhaps what day is your daughter or son going to marry? What day are you going to die? One might be able to plan when you’ll pay off a loan, but daily events can prevent you even from making that goal…. a loss of a job, change in employment, illness. All the best plans gone awry by the unexpected.
The exit strategy has always been we go when the Iraqis can stand up for themselves. But as we slowly withdraw, AQ and the Saddam ex-pats will be filing in to our wake, and testing this new government. This is from the mouth of Zawahiri himself via his forum/interview in Jan 2008. I did a post on some excerpts when I was still on Sea2Sea, called Zawahiri: In his own words, visions for the Middle East.
If, Cary, you want to know the mind and views of those we fight, I suggest you read the 48 page translation of Zawahiri’s open forum. They are just waiting for the US to leave the heart of their Caliphate. They will swarm in on our wake… perhaps to take a few shots at our warriors backs, and most certainly to try and destroy what the Iraqis have given their own blood to build (with help from the US coalition). Iraq may be “forgotten” now, but I will not be surprised if the Iraqis call upon us to slow down, or lend a bit of extra help.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Somehow that translates to me as “indefinite occupation”, even if the actual words aren’t used.
And here we are now with a date certain (12/30/2011), pending circumstances (as Obama provided for in the above linked speech), and you’re still saying we were wrong. That’s what I don’t get.
Can’t help it if you don’t know how to “translate”. No foreign base exists without a SOFA. It’s no different with our current Iraq bases in Germany, Japan, Cuba etc. Don’t see you worried about “indefinite occupation” there. So what’s your problem with the Muslim world?
I’m arriving late to the party, but I noticed an old blog post had been quoted so I wanted to see what the excitement was all about. I find discussions like this fascinating because I notice everyone seems interested in who gets to claim victory, but no one has really addressed the definition of “victory” in this conflict.
At its simplest, victory means defeating an opponent. No one on the planet believed we’d have any trouble defeating the Iraqis. Including the Iraqis. So Woohoo! Victory! We beat a country that had already been tenderized to a pulp throughout twenty-five years of military humiliations.
But victory also means accomplishing a goal. What was our goal? Our STATED goal was to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But there weren’t any. And our leaders knew that. So where’s the victory? What did we do? We bombed the living crap out of a country that had never attacked us, then spent hundreds of billions of dollars and, more tragically, thousands of gallons of American blood, rebuilding it while our own cities drowned.
Of course we could beat up Iraq. Our military is magnificent, courageous and skilled. Of course, given hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, we could help Iraq stand up again. Why is this a surprise? Why are you arguing over who can celebrate the victory of a war that should never have been fought?
We might as well fight over who gets to pick the color of the emperor’s new clothes.
@MataHarley:
We do not have combat brigades there.
I’m sure you have a fair idea when your tires will need to be replaced. And yes, I do have specific dates for reaching certain goals – even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to, having a plan helps – which is what we’ve been saying all along. I guess it’s good that we now agree.
@Barleymash:
Congratulations on fitting so many Leftist talking points, half-truths, and outright distortions into such a short, pointless post.
I’ve seen some fine efforts in that regard but yours is truly a prize winner.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Thanks, Aye Chihuahua. Whenever the phrases “leftist talking points, half-truths and distortions” get thrown around it’s usually evidence that I’ve made a good point. I appreciate your affirmation. Listen, it’s your party, so I’m really not interested in picking a fight or messing up your day. But if you disagree with my points, you might want to either ignore them or refute them. Name calling is just pathetic. I’m fairly certain that, while there are PLENTY of left-wing talking points in there (as if the rest of this thread isn’t 95% Right Wing talking points) there’s not one point in my post that’s less than 100% supportable.
Barleymash
@Barleymash:
Hmmmm….not so much.
Yeah…..
How about this one for starters?
Show me, oh Wise One, which of our leaders “knew” that there were no WMD.
Show me.
@Cary
Oh we most certainly do. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines aren’t in those countries to visit the countryside. They are all fully armed and ready for combat. They may not be on the same alert conditions as they are in Iraq, but they are on alert. Well, the boyz in Korea are probably on the same alert condition as those in Iraq.
You betcha, Aye!
I posted this earlier, but it didn’t show up. I realize now I probably clipped too large a quote.
Here you go: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
@Barleymash:
Let me get this straight.
Tenet, who told Bush that the whole WMD thing was a “slam dunk” also allegedly told Bush that there were no weapons.
In the face of all of the evidence Tenet had to the contrary that is what you’re expecting us to believe?
Laughable.
Those are two completely different screw ups. Tenet said that building a case for war would be a slam dunk. He also said there were no weapons. Only an honest, ethical person would require ACTUAL weapons be in place to build a case for war. Fortunately for the neocons, no such person was in the room at the time.
To clarify — Bush CLAIMED Tenet said the WMD thing was a slam-dunk. Tenet has repeatedly insisted he meant building a case for war was the slam-dunk. Now, you may question Tenet’s honesty, as do I. I find the man despicable. But why would he make himself out to be even MORE of a scoundrel (i.e., I can build case for war with NON EXISTENT WMDs) than just an incompetent?
This has to be good news for everyone. No one wants large numbers of US troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The problem comes when the US does finally pull out – if Al-Qaeda/Iraqi insurgents step up their attacks and destablise the Iraqi government. Would the US return? Let’s hope that doesn’t problem doesn’t arise and Iraq becomes a fully stable, independent and democratic country.
@ Barleymash
I will let Aye and Mata kick your butt on this point. I personally don’t care about the WMD issue. I know there are other ex-military people that post here and some non-military that are war buffs/historians. Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history. Going into Afghanistan only would have produced way more U.S. military casualties than going into Iraq produced. Every idiot in search of 77 virgins would have showed up and been in much more defensible positions. Fighting in Iraq brough the nut cases to us in an arena would could handle much easier.
Now, go drink some kool-aid and read Catcher in the Rye again.
“Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history.”
That’s one of the most astonishing pieces of prose I’ve ever read. Even better than Catcher in the Rye (which sucked, BTW). What did we accomplish? We know the cost. But what did we gain? We killed hundreds of thousands of people, enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region (with increased nuclear capacity, no less), wiped out trillions in US funds, overstretched our military and nearly bankrupted our VA… for what? This is a serious question. You’re saying it was a brilliant “move” because going into Afghanistan (where the people who attacked us LIVED) would have been more difficult. But we DID go into Afghanistan, and we DID still fail to get the guys who actually attacked us. What did we gain? You say we made a brilliant move and won something. What did we win that was worth the cost? Again, I’m completely stymied here and looking for a serious answer. What’s the prize?
Now *that*, bar none, is truly one of “the most astonishing pieces of prose” *I’ve* ever read.
*We* killed hundreds of thousands of people? You blame the US military and coalition for suicide bombers? Because I’m damn sure our collateral damage doesn’t even come close to that claim.
Enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region? Looked at a map lately? Got a clue how many US troops are sitting on Iran’s border?
Wiped out trillions in US funds? Sorry, that dubious honor belongs to the Eunuch in Chief, accomplished in the short span of six months. In fact, the percentage of military spending to national debt has been halved since the 80s, and welfare spending by Congress – never the Constitutional intent of the Framers – doubles our national security/military spending.
Nearly bankrupted our VA? Makes you wonder why the big Zero is bent on further bankrupting the nation by moving us toward a single payer health care system… they do health care sooooooo well.
Overstretched our military? Funny, the only one I hear complaining is you… not our military personnel who do tour after tour with nary a complaint.
You’re stymied? No surprise there. When you are so devoid of facts and strategic perspective, what else can you be?
So what did we accomplish? Ask the Iraqis. I’m sure they will be happy to tell you they are a free nation and an upcoming Muslim democracy that is no longer an enemy of the US. But I guess a friendlier Iraq, as well as Libya, in relation to our national security means little to you.
BTW, I had to go monitor my burn pile and didn’t finish with you, barley.
In additional to the geographical proximity brillance of a Muslim democracy in the heart of the Caliphate, AND it’s importance as the jewel of the ME with the fresh water and oil reserves… all being kept out of the hands of the global Islamic jihad movements (either directly or by proxy), there is the decline of jihad in the Muslim world.
Some reading for you:
The Bush Legacy
Increasing animosity towards AQ because of Iraq
Islamic World rejecting AQ
More quiet success in the war on jihad
Oh boy, someone just bit off more than he can chew and, I’m going to miss it all. Darn.
You’re right, Catcher in the Rye did suck.
We’re going to have to agree on a few things here for this to work.
1. We were going to kick someone’s ass for 9-11, right?
2. That someone was Al-Q, which at the time was being protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
3. We immediately went into Afghanistan to destroy Al-Q and the Taliban.
4. Fighting a war in Afghanistan is like playing football against the Packers in Green Bay. Ask the Russians.
5. We went to Iraq and most of “enemy combantants” came to Iraq to fight us.
6. In the end, the Iraq war, no matter what you think of it, destroyed Al-Q’s leadership and their war-making capabilities.
7. Yes, we went to Afghanistan and we’re still there. Will be for a very long time. A war in those mountains is going to take a very long time to complete.
As for the people that died, that usually happens in war.
Iran? A 6 flight sortie of F-117’s will reduce their nuclear capabilites overnight. Someone just has to have the nads to make the call.
“that usually happens in war.”
Interesting. Of course, this wasn’t the Iraqis war. It was our war. Your argument is that we had every right to reduce our casualties in Afghanistan by moving the battlefield to a more practical location, in effect using Iraqi civilians as human shields. I guess you don’t feel any moral compunction over dragging our battle into the schools and homes of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I’m not sure I’ve ever had a conversation with such a cheerful war crime buff. You guys are fascinating!
But Saddam was not a jihadist.He wasn’t even particularly religious. Here’s the funny thing with Muslim democracies: they tend to vote in Islamic theocracies. Hamas. Iran. (sure it was rigged, but what are YOU gonna do about it?) Pakistan is voting in Shariah law in more and more of the country. Even proudly secular Turkey is having trouble keeping Islamist factions from controlling the government. So sure, Iraq is a semi-secular democracy today. But all it takes is one charismatic Mullah and we suddenly have another Supreme Leader and Islamic Council to deal with.
Feh. My posts keep getting lost or delayed and retyping on my iPhone is more tedious than Salinger. One quick note before I sign off: Saddam was not a jihadist. He WAS the buttress against the caliphate. Beware of Muslim democracies. They never fail to elect Islamic theocracies. And that’s pretty much a one-way trip. Cases: Iran. Hamas. The rise of Shariah law in Pakistan. Turkey’s struggle today to remain secular. Devout faithful vote to make their faith the law. Islamic democracy is not a safe bet.
Be back later after commute and dinner.
Incorrect. Pakistan consistently keeps their militant parties that want to change the nation to Sharia law in a small minority. Additionally, the militant Islamic groups lost even more ground in Iraq’s last election, despite a Sunni turnout as high as 60% in some districts.
So much for that….
Let’s help you out with your reading problem, barley. No one said Saddam was a jihad warrior. What I said was:
Saddam, as per the Iraqi Perspectives Report IV, was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s, and up until his desposition. Thus the word “proxy”.
You can find all five volumes available at the FAS site.