Wednesday, December 6, 2006


Pres. Bush has summarized it with elegant accuracy, although a little less precision than it calls for, when he said: "[Zarqawi] and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror."

Of course, as many have noted over the past 62 months, the "war on terror" is a euphemism for "Islamofascism's war against the world," a probably useful euphemism since it helps responsible and normal-brained Muslims to ally with us without appearing (to normal minds) to be opposing their own faith. But here in the limpid and lucid CyberWorld, we can all call a spade a spade.

The accuracy of Pres. Bush's statement is beyond challenge. First, the capture of Baghdad in April 2003 represented a kind of "Inchon landing" for the free world in this war. Baghdad is the historical jewel city of the Muslim world. It beggars belief that the serene ideologues and field-marshalls of Islamofascism ever contemplated that their efforts would result in Prez Cowboy serving Thanksgiving turkey to the cheering troops in Baghdad in Nov. 2003. It was worse than a defeat, it was an humiliation, an embarassment. How can you pretend you are conquering the world, when 19-year-old kaffirs bark orders to learned imams on the streets of Baghdad?

Second, Iraq is critical for its oil, but not the way the "no blood for oil!" lunatics think. The oil supplies and revenues of Iraq are not important to be seized by the Allies, BUT TO BE DENIED TO THE ENEMY. Pundits with the attention-span of a fruitfly have completely forgotten that, with those billions of dollars of free oil money at his disposal every year, Saddam Hussein was responsible for thousands of conspiracies, bombings, assassinations, and subversions. Had he remained, it is ludicrous to imagine that he would not have continued, but with a greater activism due to greater Russian protection and higher oil prices. Now he is gone, and Iraq's oil revenues are being directed to nothing more dangerous than villas for its officials. But should the country fall to the Enemy, then those billions--at $50/barrel it is at least $36 billion/year--will provide an enormous jolt for their weaponry, subversion, training, "religious scholarships"...Use your imagination.

Fools like John Murtha cannot imagine that the first thing the Enemy would do would very likely be to implement an effective air-defense system ("Thank you, Mother Russia!") Then what good will that "over-the-horizon" capability be?

And why do they think the quality of our intelligence for critical air-strikes will magically become infallible once we have no forces on the ground there, losing all their component radars, drones, spies and tipsters? Strike them from OKINAWA, for God's sake? Has there ever been a more pathetic argument?

Third, and perhaps most significant, Iraq is the central objective of the Islamofascist Republic of Iran, which seeks at least to take Iraq into its sphere of influence. The greatest failing of the Bush administration in Iraq has been to fail to confront Iran and its campaign of assassinations and weapons-smuggling. Under the media radar--and apparently under the nose of British forces in south Iraq--an entire cadre of independent Shi'a leaders, journalists, scholars, and businessmen has either been wiped out or terrorized into submission. This was the campaign that American journalist Steven Vincent was documenting, and for which he was murdered.

With an ally/satrap in Iraq, Iran's power will be dramatically enhanced, to the point that it will have irresistible influence within the Gulf region. It's influence far from the Gulf will also be magnified.

As I write these words, it appears that the major Dhimmicrats are backing off from their cut and run arguments of 2005-6, and may actually have some contructive contributions to make. But that should not obscure the facts that the Dhims and their Defeatist Media allies have obsessively shouted down:

1--The seizure of Iraq was a master strategic stroke that put the Enemy immediately on the defensive, and demoralized him;

2--The handover of Iraq to the Enemy will waste the master stroke, give the Enemy a huge symbolic victory by recapturing their jewel city, put the enemy in charge of the vast financial and human resources of Iraq, make Islamofascist Iran the boss of the Gulf, and necessarily delay our victory by many years.

Oh, and let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives that will be lost, either.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I am convinced that if we leave, there will be a bloodbath in the middle east, equal to or greater than, the one following our precipitous withdrawal from Vietnam. The behavior of the 'Palestinian' Arabs ever after the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza is an example of what to expect. And that scenario hasn't played itself out yet, either.

Good analysis of the situation in Iraq. I am glad you pointed out the importance of the oil (which we pay for) being denied to our enemies. Have you read about the great Sunoco find in Alberta? They are currently sending it to China, lol ... but potentially there is a big possiblity for more oil independence there.

As long as we are dependent on middle east oil, our politics will be dictated by some extent, by the middle east. If they didn't have oil, I imagine we would obliterate them in a hurry.

Jewish Odysseus said...

Right on the $$ you are, Juanita, and we cn be confident that in the bloodbath period the overwhelming portion of the blood will be shed by innocents--the "warriors" of the modern Arab world will never attack a single armed foe if there is a juicy bakery packed with kids and moms available. Or some poor guys looking for a day's work.

As we review WWII, all the historians emphasize how critical it was that Hitler NEVER SECURED THE OILFIELDS OF THE CAUCASUS...That the war may have turned out differently if he had...Yet somehow only here does anyone observe that it might be important to deny the oilfields of Iraq to Bin-Laden & his henchmen.