@ Pale Rider

You raised several issues on which we agree.  However, I disagree with your (and Blueglasnost's) contention that "the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein".   Perhaps such a view suffers from 'short memory' or from 'being too young to really know'.  For those who do vividly remember the 1980's and early 90's, it should be obvious that the world is much better off without Saddam's atrocious regime and behavior.  Of course, we cannot create an 'anti-monde', i.e. imagining exactly what the world would be like today if he had regained full sovereignty sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil resources and continuing on his road to be the Arab world's Great Leader. The record of the three large-scale or major international wars that he caused should be clear enough.

But, be that as it may, we should make a distinction between (a) nation building and (b) punishing one's enemies to contain them (i.e. influence their behavior). The world's rogue regimes, including the big ones (China and Russia) will never be 'contained' through international diplomacy (or the illusion of international law), but only by brute force.

So, the lesson from Iraq for conservatives (those who still need it) should be to abandon nation building illusions and to be judicious about punishing enemies. In punishing one's enemies one should make ample use of one's enemies' enemies. I am fairly sure that the Kapitein would be masterful at that game in terms of identifying the latter. The problem with this strategy, as always in a democray, is that it will involve political costs deriving from the existence of numerous 'useful idiots' (to the world's totalitarians) in the Western media. But, compared with the political costs of nation building....

Despite bitter differences on other issues, I agree with traveller's comments, as well as pale rider's.

If Islamic societies desire liberalism and democracy, they must choose it and fight for it.  The West should provide support, but not intervene unless vital to its interests, or attempt to deconstruct the established social order.

As regards Iraq, the Iraqis never intended to “wage jihad” against the United States under Hussein.  Now, the competition for wealth and power among the various ethnic groups, religious sects, tribes and clans will occupy the Iraqis indefinitely.  Despite withdrawing, the United States can topple the government in Baghdad and return Iraq to anarchy and chaos at any time of its choosing.  Once the supporters and beneficiaries of the Ba’ath Party, the Sunni tribes will prove to be useful proxies against Iranian interests, especially as they will be reliant upon Saudi support, much as their Shia enemies are under the power of Iran. 

The 9/11 hijacked airplane attacks were the culmination of a wave of Islamic supremacism that had been gathering momentum for decades.  However, they succeeded in mobilizing the United States and causing it to marshal the forces of the West against Islamic supremacism for the first time in centuries.   Prior to the dramatic introduction of Islam into the American public consciousness, Islam was an unfortunate fact of life for many Europeans, Israelis and Arab Christians, who were very familiar with all forms of Islam’s violence and destruction, from theft to rape to suicide bombings.  Yet in spite of censorship and political correctness, anti-Islamic sentiment is not only expanding, but crystallizing in a way never before seen.

I very much dislike Obama, and more importantly, his vile and ugly wife.  However, your charges against him, while founded on some reasonable concerns, are ridiculous. 

Dear “US Soldier in Iraq”,

Your conclusion that the counter-insurgency operations in and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are mistakes is a correct one.  Also, you appreciate that strategy and tactics are at the mercy of political considerations that can cost soldiers’ lives and hinder operations.

However, I take issue with your conclusions that the United States military is advancing Islam at the expense of Christianity, and that the United States needed to declare war against Islam.  Firstly, the United States defeated and dismantled the theocratic Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and the US is focused diplomatically, militarily and covertly on preventing Islamic supremacists from finding state sanctuary.  On the diplomatic front, this involves working with “friendly” Islamic states, even if these are merely allies of convenience.  Secondly, the US military has neither a mandate to protect one ethnic or religious group over another, nor to practice collective punishment.  Lastly, unless you are proposing that the US uses WMDs to exterminate over 1 billion Muslims, it is ludicrous to declare war against “Islam” as a religion. 

I find your surprise and indignation that the US government would sacrifice American lives in order to preserve peace, that segments of the Afghan and Iraqi populations are hostile to US forces, and that American public opinion is bitterly and extremely divided on the occupations, incredibly naïve. 

In Korea, and to a lesser extent Vietnam, US servicemen died in vain in order to prevent full-scale war with the Soviet Union and then China.  Pyongyang would have already been severely punished for the Poplar Tree Incident and other crimes were it not for Beijing’s nuclear deterrent.  The Northern Alliance, comprising non-Pashtun Afghan tribes, was very appreciative of American support during the Afghan-Soviet War, and joined Coalition forces to drive out the Taleban. Unfortunately, the Pashtun tribes are hostile to any other group and are supremacists both ethnically and religiously.  Similarly, the Kurds in Northern Iraq are relatively grateful for their liberation, even if the Sunnis resented their fall from power and the now-dominant Shias are running amok.  Northern Afghanistan and Northern Iraq are more peaceful, democratic and keen to prosper compared to the other regions of their respective countries.  Finally, hostility to one’s own standing army is a legacy from the British, and was enshrined in the US Constitution.  Despite the association of the anti-war movement with the political left, it shares much of the same intellectual heritage as the constitutional militia movement and Second Amendment advocacy than many believe.  References to the “Greatest Generation” aside, American and British anti-war sentiment was far more opposed initially to the Second World War, than any conflict since.

I second most of pale rider comment. This should be pointed out that one of the most unfortunate consequence of this militaristic foreign policy is annihilation of Christian minorities in Muslim states. There is huge conflict of interest between American (and its allies) establishment and Christian cause. How we could evangelize Muslims when they attribute our actions to actions of invaders. This is how atheist Euro-American establishment is by mistake considered 'Christian', being "anti-Christian" is its very essence. Position of Vatican regarding these wars is well known.

Traveller, I agree with your point of view. Most Islamic states are artificially constructed entities and by no means resemble anything like the nation-state. While we have been fighting Al Qaeda in backward Afghanistan (with great success, ahem) and replacing the Ba'athist dictatorship by a Islamist pseudo-democracy in Iraq (and, boy, what an improvement that has been), the international coalition against "Crusaders and Jews" has advanced into Pakistan, is gradually taking over this nuclear state (get that "dictator" Musharraf back in power now before it's too late), and it now turns out it has been present all the time in Yemen, described by a Dutch journalist whom I have recently heard saying in an interview as not being a state at all. In the meantime, we have provided Iran with plenty of time to expand its nuclear programme as well as its regional influence to the point where virtually nothing can be done to reverse it.

I also agree that, contrary to popular belief, there may not be a single unified Islamic civilisation. Iran, Turkey, the Arab nations and South Asia all differ from each other. Since the collapse of the caliphate, it is problematic to speak of a single Islamic civilisation. Even at the time of the Ottomans, Arabs were fighting the supposedly Islamic caliphate. Nonetheless, there is but one Islamic faith and in spite of sectarian differences, there is such an idea as Pan-Islamism and universal Islamic brotherhood found in many if not all Islamic nations, as well as the attempt at reviving the Islamic caliphate - Al Qaeda being one of its foremost proponents. Western leaders need to be firm in their opposition to any such dangerous ideologies (assuming they actually are ideologies and not, rather, Islamic theological doctrines).

What continues to astound me in all this is the inability of certain self-styled conservatives to admit that the invasion of Iraq has been a failure and a grave mistake. I find their insistence that the Iraq war has made the United States or the West as a whole a safer place to be utterly repugnant, if not downright dishonest, and a great display of arrogance indeed. The world today is not better off without Saddam Hussein. If anything, it may be far worse and it does not look like the battle against Islamic fundamentalism will be over any time soon.

My point is this: Stop pretending that Islam and Western traditions are compatible. Stick to fighting Islamic terrorism and, for heaven's sake, give up on the nation-building and democracy-spreading nonsense.

This soldier is everything but reasonable. This would be complete insanity to declare a war against Islam. You cannot conquer by culture how advanced civilization should do? I suggests to read Pat Buchanan because as far as American-Muslim relations concentrate he seems to be reasonable. If the US wished to remove Saddam from Iraq, he is gone and so should be US army. Otherwise you face predictable consequences, apparently some certain people are too concentrated on oil business. Democracy is just a code name for oil. This is sad, that Christian soldiers must die without any deeper sense.

"Any tribal chief is responsible for terrorist attacks on his territory." Therefore, the mayors of cities where common killings are frequent should go to jail. But Schwarzenegger wants to export prisoners to Mexico. Isn't that a contradiction? Regarding middle eastern societies as tribal is an impertinence itself. Tehran and Baghdad must be really big tribes, then. The author, as a soldier, pleeds for warfare, total destruction, I might add, citing the old Greek slaughterers - that's promising!

Seeing where you come from and from which viewpoint you are speaking I can only agree with you.
But allow me a few remarks.
The Islamic culture as such doesn't exist, it's the Arabic or Persian culture which you are confronting.
Now when we say Arabic culture we are stretching the meaning of the word, but for lack of a better one we shall use it here.
The Arabic culture has never been able to grow out of the tribal and "main family" system. In that context the tribal chief or the chief of the extended family is the absolute boss.
Going to an Arab country with the declared aim of installing democracy is ridiculous, they don't even understand the concept.
Further, since communication is mainly verbal for the illiterate population, a foreign power is totally dependant on the local verbal translators.
This is an impossible situation.
Let's go back to the original aims of this war: overthrowing a dictator and installing a safe democracy where there is no place for terrorism.
You have overthrown the dictator and his state structure. This left a vacuum in which terrorism installed itself.
You created an embryo of a sort of democratic structure in which the tribal and big family chiefs immediately installed themselves, thus coming
back to the tribal system.
As in the good old days those tribes and families continue to murder their opponents while the terrorists slip in between the mazes and create havoc with everybody, using just those tribal feuds and inflaming them.
The Americans meanwhile are trying to fight terrorists in a "humane way", according to international conventions. This is not working of course because the terrorists have no fear of "humane" methods.
Further the terrorists have a free hand with the local tribes and families since they put themselves under the banner of Islam.
The only way to fight these terrorists is with the help of the local tribes and families.
Any Iraqui member of a terrorist group is responsible for the total expropriation of all property from his family, the family is responsible for their familymembers. Any Iraqui harboring terrorists is responsible with his whole family and the whole family loses its property and pays for the damage and bloodmoney of any victims.
Any tribal chief is responsible for terrorist attacks on his territory.
Inhumane? Sure for Western societies who don't allow terrorists and don't harbor terrorists in their houses, for an Arabic society the joint responsability of a family is normal and applies througout their history.
The fear to lose the whole family property should be bigger than the fear of the terrorists.
Further, any suicide bomber should be identified and published with photographs and the adresses of his family members so that his family could undergo the revenge of the bloodfeud by the families of the victims of the terrorist attack.
Suicide bombers families are supported with money and pensions after the death of the suicide bomber. When they know that their family will be killed because of bloodfeud after their terrorist attack they will be less interested in the 70 virgins.
This fight is now and has to be won, do it in their own way with their own weapons.

It only takes a very succinct first hand experience of the muslim way of life to be permanently permeated by the conviction that they are not, and never will be, compatible with an enlightened culture. It is not too late for the American people to redeem the fateful choices of a recent past and save themselves. By doing so, I pray they might save us Europeans in the process.