On Politics: The Voice Of Scott Ritter, The Iraq War, And Culpability

Scott Ritter, the former Marine and UN weapons inspector, was in town the other day, and I missed him. But I did not miss his interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio personality and host of "The Exchange." And it was good that I did not miss it, for Mr. Ritter stated something so rarely heard that it is nearly heroic in its startling frankness.

Some readers here know that I have long held that the Iraq War is really -- at the very least -- now 17 years old. The Iraq conflict has roots in the first Bush administration; that administration led a large coalition of military forces into Kuwait and southern Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Recall that part of the first George Bush's military stategy was to enlist world support by promising that the US and its allies would not enter Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein. Of course, George Bush the First was defeated by a little known governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, in 1992; that popular Democrat would oversee the bombing of Iraq and enforce the near-draconian economic sanctions against that poor country for 8 years. Besides at least two military operations led against Iraq by President Clinton -- Operation Desert Strike (1996) and Operation Desert Fox (1998) -- President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998), which called for "regime change" in Iraq, and he was the commander in chief when Osama bin Laden issued his death to "all Americans" fatwa, the very fatwa that led to the horrific and devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.

Excuse the history lesson, but it is imperative I repeat all this again -- and again. This morning, for the 1000th time, I read another letter to the editor in which it was stated, with all the pompous certainty of a sage on a cliff-top, that there was no connection at all between Iraq and 9/11. Of course, readers of this blog know that in fact there was a causal connection between those two things - a nation and a fateful day: Osama bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11 for its continued oppression of Iraq. He said so himself.

But that is not what is so enlightening in the refreshing (though incomplete) words of staunch Bush AND Clinton critic Scott Ritter. Unfortunately Ritter fails to make this simple connection between Iraq and 9/11; he is perhaps blinded to it by all the absurd rhetoric proffered by nearly everyone calling themselves liberal or Democrat. Even a couple of days ago, US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), said from the Senate floor -- with all the finality of a renegade scientologist -- that America "in truth, [is] fighting a war with no cause." Cheered as a hero by her fans, Ms. Murray can only receive from me a sighing jeer, for she knows not what she is saying at all. (A war with "no cause?" Perhaps Ms. Murray can enlighten us all to the nuances of her ontological theory on causeless actions as a keynote speaker at the next DNC convention.) Perhaps the blindness of Ms. Murray has blinded more folks than Scott Ritter, but that is beside the point. The point is that Mr. Ritter debunks with one fell swoop the idea that the current Iraq conflict is "Bush's War."

Here is what Mr. Ritter said on Wednesday during a live interview on NH Public Radio. I have transcribed it directly from the NHPR website's podcast feature found at this link. Note that the context is Mr. Ritter's conviction that the United States is poised to begin aerial assaults on key Iranian targets; Mr. Ritter was in New Hampshire promoting his forthcoming book, Target Iran.

[minute 14:16]

Laura Knoy (LK): You said that your concern started under the Clinton Administration. Just briefly, Scott, what were your concerns back then about US Middle East policy?

Scott Ritter (SR): Well, in particular about Iraq, the main concern was that we had a policy of regime change disguised as a policy of disarmament that --

LK: So regime change has been on the books for a while, it’s not just President Bush?

SR: Absolutel-- it’s been, it’s been ingrained in American policy objectives in the Middle East for decades now.

LK: And with Clinton, you said that it was a policy of regime change disguised as inspections. Can you just briefly explain what you mean there, because, again, I don’t think some people would know what the connection is.

SR: After the First Gulf War, the United Nations at the behest of the United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation. The deal was if Iraq disarmed, the sanctions would be lifted. From an American policy perspective, the sanctions were about the containment and destabilization of Saddam Hussein until which time he could be removed from power. Inspections work if they help push that policy along by showing that Iraq is not in compliance. The danger comes when inspections start to show that Iraq is complying, and that’s what we were starting to do as inspectors; showing that Iraq was disarmed: We [the inspectors] became the threat to US policy. So the US interfered with the inspection process to denigrate what we were doing in order to continue the policy of sanctions-based containment leading to regime change. The Clinton Administration always talked about supporting the inspectors, supporting disarmament, but that wasn’t their policy. Their policy was regime change. The inspections actually became the enemy. We saw this with Bush in Iraq leading up to the war, where we had inspectors on the ground contradicting every piece of information the CIA put out about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. If we were truly concerned about disarmament, we would have let the inspectors do their job. The policy was regime change.

LK: And now make the connection with Iran, again: inspections as a cover for the real goal which was regime change.

SR: It’s the exact same pattern played over again. The case for military intervention is being made based on a weapons of mass destruction-type threat being brought out from Iran, in this case nuclear weapons. We have inspectors on the ground; their reports are published at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s website accessible by everybody. Read the technical reports; the IAEA clearly states that there is no evidence whatsoever coming from their work that sustains the allegations that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program --

[emphasis added, as was link to IAEA]

While Mr. Ritter fails to make the Iraq/bin Laden/9-11 connection I have repeatedly made here, he nevertheless jars the New Hampshire audience with his blunt words: Bill Clinton was NOT trying to appease and contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Clinton theoria was inspections; but its praxis was always regime change. And THAT is why Osama bin Laden issued his death decree to all Americans during Bill Clinton's presidency: Clinton was unduly oppressing the Iraqis not because he wanted them to disarm, but because he wanted something more.

And that is why I believe the revisionists who deny this real and indisputable connection are treasonous. They may love their country -- whatever national ideal it is they adore -- but they are undeniably traitors of the truth.

By the way. When did Scott Ritter resign as a weapons inspector? That's right. In 1998, the year the proverbial crap hit the Clinton fan. And this Wikipedia entry (we are all aware that Wikipedia is not infallible) is great reading, especially in light of current political posturing and campaigning:

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden [D-MD] stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain [R-AZ] later rebutted by stating that he "wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War."

The adage is true. You can't make this stuff up at all.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

There Is No Bias:saiB oN sI erehT

George W. Bush is your worst enemy; we all know that W stands for Warmonger, and that hidden in his first name is a slightly twisted ogre. Bush the Menace.

Or so says Newsweek.

Shake your head to clear your eyes, if you must, as you look at Newsweek's newest cover: that is Bush the Bellicose glaring Middle-Eastward, eyes like warheads aimed at the Persian Prince of Peace.

One thing I am certain of is this: that in Iran, Newsweek's headline is not "The Hidden War with Iran." Instead, the Tehran edition is headlined thusly: "The Hidden -- and not so Hidden -- War with America." Wait. No. Scratch that. How foolish of me. Newsweek has it right: 'Tis Bush who has been boasting about his nation's great fate; about the absurdity of the Holocaust and the porcine Jews† who hold the earth enslaved by a mythology that fuels Zionism's many fires. 'Tis Bush who wants to usher in the New Age of the 12th Imam, a caliphate and an Eden somewhere between the Tigris-Euphrates and the edges of the earth. The four angels guarding the ancient gates of Eden are relieved of their weary duty; all through Persia run rivers of gold rhetoric, and there waters are Mahdi: peace is indeed rolling, like the thunder of nuclear detonation. And Bush shall lead us home: he is the Bush that burns with war and never leaves.

Alas, again, I am mistaken, even delirious. My first response to the Newsweek cover was utterly errant. It is not the crazed man to the left who is warring against you, me, the very foundations of Western thought. No, it is Bush. The man on the right. You know, the wrong man on the Right; the Christian Right, all broken and jumbled up, full of petty menace, and all very wrong.

Newsweek and MSNBC, allies under the same Great Peacock, can't expect us to divine -- without their journalistic help -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad, ever speaking in gracious and dulcet tones, is a man of peace with sober eyes and waiting smile.

Perhaps the 12th Imam is that man from Illinois, who has fallen from the sky. His name means "blessed."

Peace.

BG

†This is not to be construed as an anti-Semitic slur on my part. I aim to faithfully and sardonically report Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

¶ Of The Day

A new Contratimes feature? Maybe. But today I submit the first ever Paragraph, or ¶, of the Day.

Check this out from today's Washington Post editorial, "Congress's Iraq Quagmire":

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it. [Emphasis added solely to incite incredulity everywhere]

Such fun!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

More Awards; The Empty Keg Award For Story Of The Year, 2006

In keeping with my promise that I shall list my awards for best and worst of 2006 (categories determined on a whim), I would like to announce the winner of the monumental -- and very first -- 2006 Empty Keg Award for Story of the Year. It is a simple award, and it is thoroughly a disappointing one. After all, what could be more disappointing than an empty keg?

Sadly, I have no idea to whom I should give this fine honor. For it has two distinct winners, and yet both stand at opposite ends of the story. On the one end is the main stream media in America (and its European counterpart), while on the other is the Bush Administration. The former deserves accolades for wresting away and gaining control of the most important story of our time; and the latter deserves the award for letting the media get away with it. The story? Well, that is simple: The story is the genesis of the Iraq Conflict. And the Empty Keg goes to all those who repackaged history, who accepted that history, and permitted that history to become normative. Just read this clip from a recent CBS News/60 Minutes interview with President George W. Bush (the president was interviewed by reporter Scott Pelley at Camp David):

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

The sentence in bold is highlighted as a perfect exemplar of the Great Revision. To which, incredibly, the president says, "Yeah."

For sheer fun, for the jolly folly of it all, let me remind readers that A) there was not one minute from 1991 to March 2003 that the United States was not in military conflict with Iraq; B) that President Bill Clinton received during his term in office news of a fatwa - drafted by Osama bin Laden in 1998 - which called for death to Americans everywhere; C) that the fatwa placed America's continued oppression -- directed by President Clinton -- of Iraq and the Iraqi people as the primary reason Americans should be killed; D) that in 1998 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act calling for "regime change" in that tired country; E) and that the United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden in 2001 as a direct result of its bellicose posture towards Iraq (throughout the 1990's, the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq nearly every other day).

Thus, two things: The Iraq/September 11 connection is a causal one; and is so utterly credible it is incredible that anyone could be ignorant of this fact; and secondly, it is despicable that these historic facts have been permitted to drift into oblivion by the press and the president. And these are not the only facts in the case!

Nevertheless, because we at Contratimes have been wide-eyed and unblinking as we watched propaganda attain the status of absolute truth, we can with clarity of mind and soul pronounce that the 2006 Empty Keg Award for Story of the Year is well-deserved by many who walk this planet. I think the Empty Keg Award should be passed around like the Stanley Cup: first, it should go to the editorial offices of the New York Times, then to Keith Olbermann, and then to the White House. And I am sure Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will want to share it with their many fellow revisionists.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

For some further commentary regarding Iraq, 9/11, and the 9/11 Commission Report, go here. Then there is my incomparable "Adam and Eve Must Have Been Neo-Cons."

2007's Early Nominee: Senator Harry Reid

Since I began this day announcing the inaugural Contratimes annual awards (I shall be naming a few 2006 winners over the following days), I can't resist nominating US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, for the 2007 Soggy Turnip for Obscene Doublespeak. Please carefully read below what Mr. Reid said yesterday from the podium on the US Senate Floor. The context for these fine remarks is President Bush's apparently new plan for the Battle for Iraq; Democratic leaders have nearly unanimously rejected the President's plan for -- among other things -- increased troop levels in Iraq, while a few Republicans have expressed their own doubts. And both Democratic majorities in Congress are discussing whether they should not fund Bush's plan altogether.

Here is Mr. Reid's amazing articulation (the full statement is printed here):

"I will not prejudice the outcome of the vote on the President's plan, but I will say this: Putting more U.S. combat forces in the middle of an Iraqi civil war is a mistake."

There are mindbogglers, and then there are true mindbogglers. Though his entire statement is a criticism of President Bush's plan, Mr. Reid is nevertheless able to convince himself that he is not attempting to prejudice his colleagues: In fantasyland, he would never think of prejudicing anyone within earshot. George Orwell could not have written a more curious few lines. Perhaps I will consider Mr. Reid for the 1984 Soggy Turnip Award in Orwell's honor.

To think, George W. Bush can mangle a word or two and still make sense, and then be derided for his imperfect oratory; while Mr. Reid can speak with perfect eloquence and yet make no sense at all. It will be a cold day in hell before the popular press takes note of Mr. Reid's nonsense.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Come Unto Me, All Ye Who Are Heavy Laden (with explosives), And I Will Give You Rest

They are neighbors. They pass each other on the street; they breath the same dusty air. And yet … and yet.

This morning, a large crowd -- men and boys searching for work -- gathers together to fight despair, anxieties subsiding a bit in such company. There is strength in numbers, target strength.

Suddenly, a wave of optimism, some cheering, some shouts of incredulity. Hope. "Follow me, I'll hire you!" The group moves this way, then that. Men press forward to get a chance at something. They gather round a minivan, a truck. Some get in.

"Yes! Yes! I have work for you! I will hire you. Come, come closer."

In a sadistic suicide flash, 60 people are dead. Over 200 are wounded. Shiites, the poorest, lay bleeding in a Baghdad street, their ears deafened by the sound of more bad news. All in a day's work.

These are the people we all hope to help in a very different way than the man with the van full of lies. Sadly, near yet another crater in the ground, day laborers will indeed gather for work, their compensation coming in bits of flesh. They pray for peace with their neighbor and yet only find a piece of their neighbor.

It is, really, a job that cannot possibly be done in a day.

(Today, prayers for lost sons, husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, daughters, and hope.)

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Baghdad, Suicide bomber, Peace, Day laborers, Iraq

Building Better Brain Bombs

[Every once in a while I post an essay that is really a reply to something that happened off-stage, so to speak. This is one of those moments.]

The other day I received an email from someone who felt that she knew me, my opinions, my own sense of what is true, right, wrong. I shall name no names, and I shall give nothing away here. But the writer suggested that I was being, well, dishonest; and if not dishonest, I was being inaccurate, even, perhaps, revisionistic. What startled me most, of course, was the intimation that someone I barely know knows me better than I know myself. And what I apparently did not know without the help of this particular interlocutor is that I have always supported the Iraq invasion spearheaded by George W. Bush.

It's curious what people claim to know. I can assure you that my wife took this bit of news as a surprise; she recalls trying to get me to change my mind about Iraq, insisting, for example, that I should read Why We Fight by Bill Bennett (she insisted again Friday night that I need to read it). I have not read that undoubtedly fine work, largely because I already have far too much to do as I promote war at every turn. But what I think is clear is that people mistake my strident defense of President Bush as somehow support for everything he stands for; but my defense is really a critique of the junk hurled his way. I have never been pro-war, but I have been very much anti-crap. And I believe this fact with all my heart: the leftists are the revisionists when it comes to the genesis of the Iraq invasion.

Some people cannot believe that Michael Richards is not, in fact, Jerry Seinfeld's fictional neighbor, Kramer; Mr. Richards created such a convincing character one is tempted to conclude that he and Kramer are identical (how jarring it is to learn that they are not). Great actors who loathe serial killings nonetheless convincingly portray serial killers. Great novelists who are anti-war nevertheless portray war in all its brutal accuracy, even without having actually served a moment in battle. Great defense lawyers posit great apologies on their clients' behalf, leading jurors towards a "not guilty" verdict that the defense lawyer himself would not ever reach. You get the point. Merely because I have argued against the arguments proffered against the war, it does not follow that I am for the war. I am merely against bad arguments.

I would urge readers, who are interested in my feelings about the war against Islamic fundamentalism, to read what I believe is my definitive statement as presented in my series, "The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror." Readers will discover what I believe is really at stake; and readers will note, too, that I was far ahead of the pretentious and leftist billionaire George Soros, underwriter of the Democratic National Committee, who -- in a silly essay I discussed here -- called for a change in metaphor when discussing the war on terror. (And as for the attempts by linguist George Lakoff to redefine the Iraq War as an occupation, see my comment #2 at MadMike'sAmerica in this thread.)

I have been quite consistent in challenging bad arguments. I have challenged the idea that pacifism is strictly forbidden in Christian orthodoxy. I have challenged the idea that peace is attainable in "Oscar Wilde, Seinfeld, And Peace That Eludes." I have challenged arguments that suggest that only liberal dissent is deemed unpatriotic. I have criticized arguments that the war in Iraq is a quagmire, or that its difficulty proves its foolishness, or that American troops would fare better with more armor. I have criticized Madeleine Albright. In fact, I have criticized many things here. But I have never opined that I support war.

Sadly, my critic(s) will probably not read my definitive series "The Most Important Question", no matter how much I implore them to. Nor will they probably bother to read my lengthy but sincere letter to America, drafted mere days after 9/11 (and posted at a new Contratimes auxiliary), to judge its consistency with the series mentioned above. They are free to define me as they deem most expedient for them. I offer no definitions about their personal beliefs, since I hardly know these folks. I shall respectfully leave them alone.

Lastly, the emailer described me as a bomb thrower. You know, a sort of intellectual terrorist, a kind of Molotov cocktail-tosser in the brain. I stand, apparently, in the same company as Ann Coulter or, well, no one else. My rhetoric is shaped merely to detonate in the midst of irrefutable logic (or so it is suggested).

I find the 'charge' amusing.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

The Most Important Question: Epilogue

In parts I and II of this series, I mentioned a belief in inevitability that runs through Islam; a theological concept of predestination. This article of belief is known as al-Qadar. Marxist- Communist doctrine is similar, claiming that the proletariat struggle against the bourgeoisie (with the proletariat's eventual overthrow of that bourgeoisie and the socializing of the means of production) is an inevitable process of history. Of course, this Marxist idea is a religious idea, as there are no logical or scientific proofs to Marxist idealism.

I was a bit heavy-handed, I think, in attributing by innuendo to all Muslims that all Muslims are quiet about terrorism, or are supportive of or comfortable with al-Qadar. There are problems in Islamic theological discourse between Muslim clerics, with sundry divisions, in ways familiar to those of us attuned to divisions in Christian theology. No one group is ever completely homogeneous.

Let me direct you to this interesting condemnation of Islam's old infatuation with suicide bombings. It is delivered by a Muslim cleric. Please take the time to read this speech reprinted at MEMRI. It is revealing (though there are problems with it). [Thanks to Frontpagemag.com for citing it.]

I will end my comments with this curious syllogism found at Answering Islam.org:

• (1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
• (2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
• (3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.

In a technical sense, this is a valid syllogism, a modus tollens, though I find such syllogisms faulty. For this could be an equally valid modus tollens:

1. If my dog is home, the front door will be locked.
2. The front door is not locked.
3. Therefore my dog is not home.

But the syllogism about Islam raises an interesting point. If there is a God, and that God has established a religion, one would think that that religion would expand and not contract. Of course, Christianity's earliest writings predict a great apostasy in "the last days" from its own folds, but I do not believe Islam makes similar claims of itself. Islam is much more concerned about earthly terrority and holy sites than is Christendom: Visitation to such sites is one of the Five Pillars of Islam (Hajj). Much of Islam is fixed on earthly dominance and expansion, and thus is much more vulnerable to the problem raised in the syllogism printed above.

IRAQ CONSTITUTION

As you know by now, the deadline has passed in Iraq, and the Iraqis have not agreed upon a constitution. This news is only disappointing in the most superficial analysis. To me, the news is heartening and exciting. That one Iraqi lawmaker said that the constitution thus far drafted has been drafted "by the powerful people, and not by the people," is beautiful, for it reveals the depth of understanding some if not all Iraqis possess about the drafting of a constitution. Even some lawmakers have recommended that parts of the constitution be sent to the Iraqi people in a referendum. In that way, perhaps, the seminal elements of democracy will be fertilized even more. But what is heartening is that the process is taking time; even lots of time. Which proves, at the very least, that people are taking this process seriously, and are not rushing off pell-mell to take control of an ancient and vulnerable culture.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror, Part II

In Part I of this series (which is a prerequisite for understanding what follows), I argued that the Islamic article of belief – al-Qadar – the sixth of six such articles, must lead us who reside in the West to this important question: Has Allah willed the destruction – or the submission – of the West?

As I have shown, al-Qadar is the will of Allah; that all that comes to pass has been willed by him. Thus, as the towers imploded at Ground Zero, Muslims submitted to Allah's will – the towers were willed down by Allah's fiat. There is therefore no real condemnation of the act of terror: Since it happened, it was meant to happen. There is no denying Allah's hand.

Of course, this teaching is fraught with difficulty, as many Muslim scholars admit. Where is human free will in Allah's sovereignty? Does Allah will evil and sinfulness? How does a Muslim understand devastating personal or military defeat? (For some analysis of the problems such questions raise, follow the links in Part 1.)

Irrespective of the difficulty of al-Qadar, the fact remains that most if not all practicing Muslims are reluctant to either condemn or reject this article of belief. Why? Because it is fundamental to that faith, and to the very essence of Islam, a word which means "to submit" or "surrender". Allah must be sovereign. He can not be surprised; he cannot have other wills competing against his own; he cannot NOT know everything. Otherwise, he would not be all-powerful or all-knowing. In short, he would not be Allah.

THE WAR ON TERROR AND AL-QADAR

In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, an Israeli army major reservist wrote about his role in removing his fellow citizens from Gaza, a painful and harrowing ordeal. Michael B. Oren writes about how he felt prior to that dreadful eviction:

"My feelings were, at best, ambivalent. I wanted to end Israel's occupation of Gaza's 1.4 million Palestinians and preserve Israel's Jewish majority, but feared abetting the terrorists' claim that Israel had fled under fire." [emphasis added]

(see Page A10, August 23, 2005)

What is important to see in Oren's comments is what I've highlighted in bold: He feared that Israel's withdrawal would fuel the terrorists' belief that Israel was routed by superior force. Why is that important? Because it supports the Islamic belief that, if a thing happens, Allah wanted it to happen. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza proves the supremacy of Allah's will, and the supremacy of his Lordship over even other gods. After all, there is no other God but Allah. The Jewish God is no match at all.

Remember Osama bin Laden's celebration over the surprising (to him) collapse of the World Trade Center towers? The collapses proved his faith in Allah; Allah was on his side. Similarly, when the mujahideen pushed back the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, this success was proof that Allah was against the greatest Western super-power in Europe and Asia. And the retreat of American troops in Somalia proved more of the same.

So Israel's "retreat" is seen as a defeat, and a sign that Allah is on the move.

WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

For a moment, let us countenance the foreign policy of someone like Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a fallen soldier camped out at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, TX. Let us agree that America should begin an immediate and systematic withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and even Afghanistan. What would those actions do to Islamic religious beliefs about its holy war against Western infidels?

Answer: It would fuel confidence that Allah was in fact supreme, and supremely interested in defeating the infidel West. It would vindicate the insurgents' attacks along countless roadsides. It would be cause for celebration. What will be was MEANT to be. Meant by Allah.

Thus, retreat and withdrawal from the Middle East is an act of concession on a religious scale, and not a military one.

In Part 1, I asserted that the West, particularly the United States, might want to rethink its military strategy in Iraq or withdraw. Clearly, withdrawal is not an option. But its current military strategy may in fact be as ineffective and dangerous as withdrawal. Why?

If in fact al-Qadar infuses all of Islam, or most of it, then perhaps the only military strategy effective in dealing with Islamic militants is profound military superiority. And I mean profound. (Please note: I am not advocating this, only analyzing what is before us.) If, for instance, the West were to destroy all Islamic holy sites, making them in fact uninhabitable and unrecognizable; if the West obliterated every alleged Allah-backed stronghold, the Islamic faith in Allah would be sorely shaken, and may perhaps never recover. In fact, Islam might even be destroyed, or reformed into something hardly recognizable to its current form.

Again, I am not advocating this, nor am I wishing this. I am merely suggesting what may be the only viable military option to confront those Muslims committed to Allah's victory over alleged Western infidelity.

There is, of course, another way. We could do what I said yesterday: We could let the theologians fight the battle.

"CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY"

Recall what Ann Coulter said shortly after 9/11: The West should, among other things, invade Islamic countries and "convert them to Christianity". In a way, her remarks were brilliantly on point. For what we need to do is win the propaganda war with radical Islam: We need to show the most aggressive corners of Islam that the religious idea of Allah's sovereignty is not intellectually viable. In other words, we should not be launching sorties of bombs on Muslim strongholds, but sorties of brochures pointing out the weakness of a deity that wills everything. (Of course, this would violate Church/State or Mosque/State separation requirements. But what must America do if indeed the war on terror consists of a religion battling a secular state. Should that secular state ignore religion altogether? Should it be mute about it? Or should it engage its opponents in a battle of wits?)

What? Have I lost my mind? No. What I am saying is this: Any deity deemed to be all-powerful is not a deity if he (or she) WILLS everything. Willing EVERYTHING is a sign of weakness, not strength. Really, who is stronger, that Being which MAKES everything turn out his way, or that Being which permits things to happen randomly and yet nonetheless conform to his will?

Think of it this way (I'll try not to be too theological here). Imagine two men in an adventurer's race from New York City to Katamandu. One racer maps out every step; makes plans to the final minute; mapping out every runway and highway and airport escalator. The other racer plans nothing other than a willful first step. And with that first step he is carried in a whirlwind of events: he is hit by a car, taken to hospital, blown out a window by a tornado, lands in a ship, shipwrecks at sea, swims to shore, is offered a bicycle ride by a one-legged man. The racer with the plan and the map is making great headway, and yet, at the finish line, is amazed to find that his opponent is buying fabric in a Katamandu market. Which of these racers is really the more adventurous, and even the more powerful? Is the man who plans and controls every step powerful, or the one who finds his way through chaos?

But we are not talking about men here, we are talking of gods. And if there is a God, it would seem to me that He must be so all-powerful that His will would still cosmically prevail without His needing to decree every single instant. (As theologian Karl Barth said of the Christian Incarnation, God is so omnipotent He can be impotent and still be God. God has the power to be powerless.) Moreover, His Will is not some sort of preconceived outcome, like decreeing that Jerusalem is the seat of Utopia. His Will is not a quantity but a quality: It is not that the end of all things is defined by the walls of a perfected state. The end is defined by whether the end of all things is LOVING. Hence, God's will is more about His heart than His head. He does not have a PLAN. The creation is enfused with His nature, and thus, no matter how creation unfolds, through myriad accidents and trials and seemingly random events, it will end up according to God's nature. The paths to the end may be infinite; but the end will always be the same: God's will crosses the finish line first, and the prize is love and gentleness and prodigal generosity. The prize is not a better government or a better nation-state or caliphate.

It is this sort of argument that needs to be dropped on the "fatalists" at war with us. What is needed is the sowing of healthy doubt. What is needed is to make people, no matter who they are, doubt themselves enough to wonder if they in fact "might be wrong." What we need ultimately is the destruction of certainty; religious certainty.

Who are the most gentle, easy people with whom to debate religion? Is it that person who KNOWS they are right about God? Is it that person who is certain you are wrong for believing in Christ? Is it that arrogant agnostic certain of his doubt? Or is it that person who is health-fully doubtful, recognizing the role of faith in all knowledge; recognizing that our certainties are often the worse thing about us? In short, are not the best dialogues on religion between those who are genuinely (not feignedly) humble about their beliefs, admitting their vulnerabilities and doubts?

There are only a few ways to fight the War on Terror: As an all out flexing of muscularity and blustering of machismo; a turning heel and running scared; a half-hearted display of strength; a reasoned, calculated blend of force and diplomacy. America may in fact be involved in the shrewdest type of warfare ever seen: superior firepower blended with conviviality and fraternity and patient restraint. But unless the War on Terror includes a better bomb for the mind and heart – the religious mind and heart – the war will continue on its perennial, 4000-year-old course.

This is a religious battle over the nature of God. I am, I think, certain of it. But I could be wrong.

Peace to you.

(Here is Part III, the epilogue.)

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved

The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror

What I am attempting here today might be overly ambitious. But I want to get at the most important thing you need to know about the so-called War on Terror. I am not suggesting that the War on Terror is false or foolhardy. There is undoubtedly the Islam-fueled machinery of terrorism aimed at the West. But what I am suggesting is that the War on Terror is not really aptly named. It would be like calling the practice of medicine a "War on Pain". Pain is only a symptom. Of course, sometimes medicine can only treat symptoms; the common cold is so treated. But a medical War on Pain is about etiology, about causes and origins. It is not about pain per se, but what the pain signifies. Hence, medicine is about treating causes; about eradicating threats to health. But even that is not the ultimate aim of medicine. Medicine is not ultimately about a War on Pain or Causes. It is ultimately about a War on Death.

Similarly, the War on Terror, playing out as a war on symptoms, should be a war against causes. But the causes are not failed foreign policy or trade imbalances or territory occupations. Those themselves are symptomatic. What the war is ultimately about is something far scarier, and far more elusive. The War on Terror is really a war about the nature of God. My aim is for this essay to be the most important thing you've ever read about radical Islam, and its aggressions toward the West. And it is to suggest two things: The West either needs to completely redefine its use of military force in this war, or it needs to stop such force altogether. In short, the War on Terror might be better fought by theologians than soldiers.

I begin with the National Geographic documentary "Inside 9/11". This well-done though imperfect and incomplete 4-hour film defines the key "causes" of 9/11, though it reaches only back into the deep history of 1980. That this is a tremendous shortfall is obvious, though the reason for this mistake is likewise obvious: Islam and the West have been at 0dds for over 1000 years, so a line must be drawn somewhere. What happened in 1980? The former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, an invasion which was nothing but struggle for the Soviets for 8 years. Eventually, Muslim fighters – the mujahideen – backed with weapons supplied by the US' CIA, forced the great socialist state to retreat in defeat.

This defeat set the tone for men like Osama bin Laden (OBL): They were on the right side of God, as Allah decreed. This religious confidence would expand, finding itself expressed in the "defeat" of American forces in Mogadishu (backed by OBL) made infamous in the film, "Black Hawk Down" (I have read that Somalia celebrates an annual holiday in honor of its victory over America); through September 11, as Muslim crowds cheered the demolition of the World Trade Center; and even on through to today, as Israel completes its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Where does this confidence come from? Why do Muslims cheer as thousands die? And why have no major Islamic leaders – political or religious – denounced those horrific acts?

The confidence of Islam and its glee over and seeming indifference to death comes from one of the most important teachings of Islam. It is to this teaching that I will now turn.

al-Qadar

If you are at all familiar with the Calvinistic idea of predestination, then you are on the road to understanding the Islamic teaching of al-Qadar. It is, in simplest possible terms, the idea that an all-powerful, all-knowing Allah wills and decrees and foreknows every thing that comes to pass. That this teaching is fraught with difficulty is admitted by Muslim scholars the world over, as many struggle to maintain a concept of human free will in the presence of an omnipotent Allah. Of course, this same problem exists for Christian theologians, particularly those in the Calvinist tradition.

Granted, I have perhaps over-simplified the doctrine, but I have stated its essence accurately. One online definition and description is to be found here; a more thorough one can be read here or at this link.

Let me share three things I've learned over the years as I've studied this. First, this doctrine is not peripheral or tangential to Islam, it is essential. In fact, it is the sixth of the Six Articles of Belief. "Islam", let us remember, means "to submit or surrender"; the surrender of the Muslim (one who surrenders) to the will of Allah. Second, to deny or challenge this foundational doctrine is to risk divine judgment. And third, this teaching has led many to believe that Islam is essentially fatalistic: That there is nothing in life but inevitabililty; there is no personal control over destiny. In fact, G.K. Chesterton nearly 100 years ago repeatedly referred to Islam as the religion of fatalism. Muslims have actually addressed this charge (for an example, go here). For a discussion about such fate, study this link.

I want to highlight two statements regarding al-Qadar from sources already cited:

"Al-Qadar is a matter of Allah's Knowledge. No one can uncover his own Qadar but after it happens. One's intention to perform a deed precedes the action itself. He does not know what Al-Qadar holds for him."

"Allah created everything and nothing happens without His permission. He said that all actions taken by His slave happen by His Will, (If Allah had willed, succeeding generations would not have fought against each other, after clear Versus of Allah had come to them, but they differed, some of them believed and others disbelieved. If Allah had willed, they would not have fought against one another, but Allah does what He likes.) [2:253] and, (And if We had willed, surely! We would have given every person his guidance, but the Word from Me took effect (about evil-doers), that I will fill Hell with Jinn and mankind together.) [32:13].

"As for the mind, the universe is Allah's Kingdom and mankind are a part of this Kingdom. Therefore, all mankind are owned by Allah. The slave cannot do anything in this Kingdom unless its Lord, Allah, gives him permission."

THE PROBLEM

I hope the reader can guess where I am going here. I am suggesting something entirely simple, and it is this: When something occurs, whether it be the defeat of the Soviet army, the withdrawal of American troops from Somalia, a bombing in London or Madrid, or the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, Muslims MUST view those events as Allah's will, his Qadar. There is no other choice. And if you've read the articles to which I've linked, then you know that al-Qadar is not an easy teaching for Muslims: It is nearly impossible for them to separate a person's freedom from Allah's decree. In fact, if I were a Muslim, I would always choose, largely because of the difficulty of the teaching, to assign all actions to a sovereign deity in order not to offend that deity's omnipotent honor.

Osama bin Laden himself submits to this teaching, as proven by his comments released in December 2001. Surely we all remember the videotape, with OBL sitting in a cave speaking about 9/11 to a Saudi sheik? What did they say about the World Trade Center? They said this, translated of course [UBL is Usama bin Laden, a variant spelling]:

UBL: (... Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (... Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

Shaykh: Allah be praised.

UBL: We were at (... inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5: 30 p. m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-(( Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center.

Shaykh: Allah be praised.

UBL: After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.

Shaykh: I listened to the news and I was sitting. We didn't... we were not thinking about anything, and all of a sudden, Allah willing, we were talking about how come we didn't have anything, and all of a sudden the news came and everyone was overjoyed and everyone until the next day, in the morning, was talking about what was happening and we stayed until four o'clock, listening to the news every time a little bit different, everyone was very joyous and saying "Allah is great," "Allah is great," "We are thankful to Allah," "Praise Allah." And I was happy for the happiness of my brothers. That day the congratulations were coming on the phone non-stop. The mother was receiving phone calls continuously. Thank Allah. Allah is great, praise be to Allah.

(Quoting the verse from the Quran) Shaykh: "Fight them, Allah will torture them, with your hands, he will torture them. He will deceive them and he will give you victory. Allah will forgive the believers, he is knowledgeable about everything."

Shaykh: No doubt it is a clear victory. Allah has bestowed on us... honor on us... and he will give us blessing and more victory during this holy month of Ramadan. And this is what everyone is hoping for. Thank Allah America came out of its caves. We hit her the first hit and the next one will hit her with the hands of the believers, the good believers, the strong believers. By Allah it is a great work. Allah prepares for you a great reward for this work.

(Read the complete transcript here)

What is the response to OBL's having learned that the towers have collapsed? "Allah be praised". It is more than anyone hoped for.

Hence, that the towers collapsed PROVES to (most?) Muslims that they were MEANT to collapse, by divine decree. In fact each terrorism attack that succeeds vindicates militant Islam's belief in its superiority to the religions of other nations. Moreover, Muslims can't really denounce something if it has already occurred: Allah willed it!

Where does that then leave us? It leaves us in the heart of a theological debate, even if each of us in the West living under Osama bin Laden's fatwa is an atheist. There is no way around this religious issue. It is the heart of the struggle, and that struggle begs this most important question: Is the deity of Islam WILLING the West's destruction or not?

It is food for thought.

(CLICK HERE for Part II)

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All rights reserved.

Why-War: A Letter To A License Plate

[In honor of the Memorial Day which we in America generally celebrate with a three-day weekend, parades and solemn assemblies, I submit a short series of essays regarding war, the military and "turning the other cheek", among other things.]

Dear "Why-War",

I saw your Subaru wagon the other day zip through town. You were just about to escape my attention when I spotted your license plate, Why-War; and I realized that it's too bad such plates don't come with punctuation marks. For surely you mean to ask a question, "Why war?" But it is possible that your little plate is for you an answer to a rhetorical question, like "Why do we care about the Middle East?"

"Why? War."

Or perhaps it's "Why Dash War," about hastening to do battle when you'd prefer restraint.

But I doubt your diminutive statement is so nuanced. It is no doubt a form of protest, a skeptic's query into the futility of war; a pacifist's shaking of the head; a Quaker's bending of the knee.

It's amazing how something as terse as "Why war?" requires for an answer something the size of a book. When one hears, for example, that "the war in Iraq is all about oil," one is struck with not merely the uselessness of trying to answer the statement in like length ("The war is not about oil"), but with the daunting fact that rebuttals to such claims may require volumes. If I say that "I am a descendant of the sexual union between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene," which is a rather small statement, there is no short and easy answer for even the most gifted Christian apologist to posit against me. Moreover, if I should say that President Bush is a liar, and leave it at that, my respondents might take months to tear down my assertion.

So, too, with your little "Why war?" There is no easy answer.

But like a fool too eager to take on any challenge, I shall run in headstrong -- like an untrained man runs into a burning house to aid his neighbor -- and I shall answer your query.

There are two reasons to "war," and they are that war is natural, and that war is loving. Do you doubt me? I should think you would. But I think that you would be wrong to hold fast to that doubt.

That war is natural is as plain as biology. Just read "Fecundity," the priceless chapter in Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, and you'll understand the claim. For every cell on this planet is in a battle against other cells; every species bears within its cytoplasm the power of defense and attack; the power of parry and lunge. Darwin knew this intimately, though not with the mystical force of Ms. Dillard. Life is struggle, if it is anything.

Right now, in each human body, masses of cells fight to keep the masses of cells alive, swarming and devouring enemy cells with so much pus and pugilism, white blood cells swirling down highways of vein and artery, blue and red lights a-flashing. There is no peace in the human corpus, until it is a human corpse. Even when the human body fails to protect itself from invaders, outside mercenaries come with hypodermics and knives and radiation and chemotherapy, with all restraint cast to the wind to rout out and destroy enemy strongholds. And all this without even flinching about collateral damage, as organs are chopped up and limbs chopped off to stop the cancerous, gangrenous, infectious flow.

If the human body can be so violent, and the doctors who protect it, then why not the body corporate, the collective humanity of nations, as they fight to rid the world of infection and disease? No doubt some, yourself included, might retort that humans are not cancers, that some regimes are not infections, and that to excise them is improper. But surely you agree that not all ideas are equal, or else you'd not be a pacifist, would you? And surely you agree that there are such things as bad ideas, ideas like "The Jews Must Die!" or "Long Live Tyranny!" Well, if there are bad ideas, such ideas do not live in a vacuum. They live in a host, whether it be one sick ruler, like Hitler, or one sick group of people. For there are people who believe bad ideas, with all their heart. Are the carriers of bad ideas not a threat, particularly if their idea is "Kill the infidel Americans!"?

OK. So you might accept that some people are bad. But do I hear you complain about preemption, about attacking that which is not a threat, at least not yet? Oh, what to say to that.

Perhaps something personal. My own mother, a small tumor in her breast, awoke from surgery to discover her entire breast was gone, her pectoral muscle (much of it) and her lymph nodes chiseled out, with but a scar left, all in a preemptive strike of the surgeon's scalpel. Preemptive strikes happen all the time in this world, every minute, and it is as common as bees swarming and stinging to death (including their own death) a threat that is no threat at all, but is only so perceived. Why war? Why sting?

But we are more than bees, or so we believe, and we have more to learn from gods than we do from white blood cells. Or so you might claim?

Fine. Let's take a look at the greatest of all religious founders, at least to those of us in the West, Jesus the (alleged) Christ. For in his teachings we find, or so it goes, the clearest and simplest moral codes, particularly as it relates to violence. "Turn the other cheek" to your aggressor; "Those who fight by the sword" shall die by it; "Love your neighbor as yourself." Ahh, yes, the refreshing simplicity of Jesus' teaching!

But, please notice, dear sir, that Jesus does not really teach us anything about conflict. Yes, he tells us to find our accuser and make peace with him, or to make peace with the magistrate before he presents his case in the court, but Jesus tells us nothing about how to behave if our accuser or judge loathes making peace.

Here's what Jesus does not help us with at all. Imagine you and your son are sitting at table Sunday morning enjoying sticky buns and tea. Suddenly your neighbor barges through the door wielding an ax, blood dripping from his arms and hands. He raises his ax over his head and steps toward you.

Stop the scene! Now ask yourself, "Who is my neighbor?" Is it the man with the ax, or your son, or both? Both, right? So, if we take Jesus' words to heart, you must turn your cheek to your neighbor, right? Which neighbor? Oh, yes. The aggressive, murderous one. And now imagine if that is what you did (start the scene!), that you, having the power to stop the man with the ax, turned in deferential love to him your silky cheek, and permitted him to cleave your skull.

Stop! How is this act of selfless pacifism loving your other neighbor, your son? How is he LOVED by your submitting to murder, and, how is HE loved by you leaving him unprotected from the murderer's hands. Moreover, how is "turning your cheek" loving at all, when it is unloving for a father (is it not?) to knowingly and willingly leave his son fatherless?

OK. Start the scene again. This time, instead of the ax-man coming at you, he turns to kill your son, or a different neighbor, Mr. Jones, who has just dropped by. You are not going to shout to your son, "Just turn the other cheek, Jimmy!" or to Jones, "Turn that cheek of yours, Jonesy!" Are you? How is this "loving your neighbor as yourself"?

You see, Jesus does not help us here. Nor can he. For your son is your neighbor, and you must consider his well-being. What then is the loving thing to do? The loving thing is to protect your son and the madman; your son from violence and being orphaned, the man from committing a crime from which he may never recover. So, you leap to your feet, fight the man with fury, and you protect your son. In fact, you kill the ax-wielder, if you must, in order to keep him from sinning further, which is an act of grace and love.

But more importantly, here is a lesson Jesus does not teach: You not only must turn the other cheek to aggressors, you must FORCE everyone around you to do the same. In other words, Jesus did not teach that it is your mission to make everyone pacifists, but that only you should turn the other cheek. Hence, it is not Jesus who teaches that we should protest the defensive manuevers our neighbor across the street decides to take when he or she feels threatened.

So, in short, Jesus does not really help us understand war. He gives us little to go on.

Think of war, politically, in this way. If a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion with the blessing of the Supreme Court, then why doesn't your neighbor have the right to defend himself with all the force of the military? After all, if you're pro-life, it's not YOU who's having the abortion. Nor, if you are pro-peace, is it you bombing Baghdad. You see (surely you do), that this is all about freedom, about people having the liberty to defend themselves, or to stop aggressors from offending others, as they see fit: That is how THEY LOVE THEIR NEIGHBORS. And you, all pacifist and concerned in your Subaru, can go about your day loving and fighting and turning the other cheek as you see fit.

Sometimes loving one's neighbors requires that you stop them in their tracks from hurting your other neighbors, and by hurting themselves should they continue their violent ways. Stop a man dead before he kills a man, and you've stopped him from committing a crime. It's an odd grace, but it is a grace nonetheless.

I hope this answers your "Why-War" license plate. Do you know, by the way, that such plates are known as "vanity plates?"

Perhaps you do.

Peace, always.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: War On Terror, Pacifism, Christianity

The trees from the forest (Thoughts on the Iraq War, part II)

It might seem far-fetched to suggest that one can learn anything about the Iraq War from New Hampshire forests but, I beg you, trust me when I say there is a very helpful lesson in our northern woodlands. At least there's something to learn from the loggers who drop off firewood in our yards each year.

Recall, first, that the Iraq War was not about weapons of mass destruction, or about imminent terror threats. The war was and continues to be about eradicating a regime, a particularly tyrannical one, from the Mid-East political calculus. No one believes that had WMDs been found in abundance, and then confiscated, US soldiers would have immediately returned home. Nay, the war since its inception has been about removing a particularly loathsome regime, defiant to the last (a defiance that could only embolden others of the same ilk), regardless of whether one agrees with that fact or not.

How, pray tell, can loggers teach us anything about war; about insurgency and the difficulty of changing a regime? They can teach us merely by describing the difference between clear-cutting and selective-cutting.

Clear-cutting, the easiest, most aggressive and safest form of logging merely requires equipment, manpower and energy to sweep through a forested plot to lay the land to waste. Analogically speaking, clear-cutting is to forestry what the bombing of Dresden or the atomic fires of Hiroshima are to warfare. A shock-and-awe campaign of sweeping devastation against a distinct enemy is the strategic equivalent of clear-cutting.

Selective-cutting attempts to remove a predetermined species of tree from a diverse forest. Removing oaks, for example, from a forest of deciduous and coniferous trees is to be selective. Moreover, selective-cutting, an oft used method for harvesting the best firewood, is fraught with difficulty and hazard. Felling and removing giant trees through and around other trees without damaging oneself or the surrounding plants is timely, costly, difficult. Just ask a logger.

The Iraq War, then, is the task of selectively cutting from a people the villainous without harming the harmless. It’s like trying to remove every vestige of an oak - be it a sapling or acorn - without disturbing the surrounding landscape.

Imagine, now, if you will, what it would be like for loggers, even those with the best training and grandest gear, to enter a woodland where the oaks not only move and hide, the oaks wield guns. Imagine if the oaks sometimes dressed like birches or pines; and even, in some cases, dressed like loggers. How long would it take to get the job done? Could it be done without damaging neighboring trees; or claiming loggers’ lives? How so, if such oaks move and plant themselves in the midst of poplars, and then blow themselves up; if oaks from other forests come to replace those hewn down; if even the oaks carry chainsaws?

Sound difficult, or time-consuming? Just ask a soldier.

Those who have ceaselessly complained about the difficulty of the Iraq War, using that difficulty as proof of failed American policy, have not for one second understood what the US military has attempted to do: It has attempted to rid the forest of harmful growth without hurting that which is beneficial (imagine removing all the weeds from a long-neglected garden; or cancerous cells from healthy). Those who proclaim “Quagmire! Disaster!” have not spent one minute selectively cutting their own woodlots. And the most hawkish among us who decry US strategy for not being one of clear-cutting violence, must recall that there were survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Clear-cut Baghdad with a nuke and Saddam Hussein may still rule Babylon. To clear out a regime, the fighting must be detailed and methodical, excising every stem, root and seed of that regime. After all, it was selective-cutting that captured Hussein, guaranteeing the inevitability of complete regime change. Dangerous, yes, but more exact than a well-aimed cruise missile.

In short, the US has been conducting a humane war, cautious to a fault, against an invisible enemy that has no sense of neutrality; an enemy that attacks anyone, anywhere. And with a new democratically-elected Cabinet formed in Iraq today (though arguably an imperfect Cabinet) one can only conclude that the job of America’s armed forces has been remarkably well-done. It might be slower and more costly than what some may desire. That's the price of selective regime change. But what is the alternative? Withdrawal? To do that would guarantee the return of tyranny; and it would be a bitter defeat of all Americans.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

When armor is a liability (Thoughts on the Iraq War, Part I)

[updated May 3, 2005]

(Monday's New York Times [4/25] reported that a particular U.S. Marine unit in Iraq had suffered heavy losses. Much of the loss was blamed on poorly armored Humvees. The reader will recall, too, that late last year Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was questioned by a soldier about insufficiently armored vehicles. Today, as last year, the media point a finger at the alleged failings of the Defense Department and the Bush Administration to adequately protect soldiers in harm's way. And Sunday's [5/1] NYT editorial rebuked the DOD for failing to adequately protect soldiers in the field.)

[updated November 24, 2006]

(As predicted here in this essay, American soldiers are indeed experiencing difficulties with military vehicles retro-fitted with armor. The vehicles were never designed to carry such weight.)

When I worked as a photojournalist, I would occasionally hear this sort of remark at the scene of a gruesome car accident: "Had they been going slower, the injuries would not have been so severe." Or, in the case of a collision that was newsworthy despite the fact no one was hurt, one might hear: "Had they been going faster, they would not have been so lucky."

That these two comments -- both on the surface oozing with common sense though utterly inane  -- proves the point that most people who speak thusly are simply not thinking. For if two cars were indeed traveling faster, then they would have been in different spaces at different times, and thus would not have collided at all. There would be no injuries; and there would be no news. The truly common sense thing would be to say, "If only they had been going faster this crash would not have happened." For that is accurate.

The same goes for cars traveling slower. Two drivers chugging along the same road would not ever hit each other at point A if they have not yet reached point A; nor will they ever reach it simultaneously.

Of course, we know what people MEAN by these inane statements. They MEAN to say that "at the point" of impact it would have been better had they been going slower. But the reality remains: If they were going slower, there would be no point of impact.

Thus highlights the very stupid observations offered by those critics of the war in Iraq who believe that armored Humvees would protect soldiers: "If only they had Kevlar window panels, these soldiers would not have died."

But let me rip somewhat irrationally on this idea for a moment. For the critics' arguments are akin to this: "If the bullet that just passed through Cpl. Smith's waist had instead hit his government-issued canteen two inches to the right of entry, he'd be alive now. How dare the Bush administration only provide one canteen to each of our servicemen, and how dare Rumsfeld require the canteen be worn in one specific spot!"

Now let me be a bit more rational. A Humvee is a heavy, rugged vehicle, with suspension, transmission and various other components designed to provide optimal all-terrain behaviors in a variety of war situations. It was NEVER designed to be an armored personnel carrier. It was designed to be relatively fast (0-60 in 45 seconds, I believe), though not nearly as fast as most Democrats' Chevy Suburbans. Moreover, it is tuned according to both its dry weight, and its weight under load.

Imagine then, what would be required if all Humvees were retrofitted in the field with armor. The vehicle would be heavier; harder to drive (vision would be obscured); it would be slower. Springs, drivetrains, gas mileage: each of these would be affected. And thus the vehicle would become a potentially GREATER danger and liability. And then THIS would be the hue and cry:

"The Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld are being criticized for their failure to protect troops with better Humvees. For ever since the Defense Department retrofitted the Humvees with armor, the vehicles have become easy targets, as they are slower, less agile, and far more difficult to drive. And now that the insurgents know that the vehicles are more fortified, larger roadside bombs have been used to destroy these much more vulnerable targets. And in some cases soldiers have been killed because the modified vehicles, now barely getting 3 miles per gallon of fuel (down from 8), have run out of gas in the midst of ambushes.

"We call for a complete overhaul of the Humvee project. That the Administration would so poorly protect our soldiers with armor that has cost more lives than it saved should anger Americans everywhere."

Thus would opine the New York Times.

Moreover, let's not forget that soldiers' behavior would change, perhaps endangering them even more, once they perceived themselves to be "protected." Safety gear often causes many a young man and woman to throw caution to the wind.

Look. Soldiers are still killed while wearing high-tech gear. Police officers are killed sometimes BECAUSE they are wearing bullet-proof vests (a small caliber round can enter through an unprotected arm hole and ricochet off the inside walls of the vest and rip up the chest cavity, a worse injury than if the officer was without a vest). If that's the case, should soldiers and officers NOT be issued this gear? Or should they be issued even MORE gear, protecting them from small arms fire, for sure, but limiting their movements, making them vulnerable to merely falling over like beetles on their backs?

Let us recall, too, that motor vehicle air bags, those great safety innovations with such promise, sometimes kill people, as do seatbelts. Sometimes the only person to survive a car wreck is that person ejected from a tumbling vehicle due to having not worn a safety restraint.

The fact remains that bad things happen in war, particularly the kind of war which is Iraq: A war where the enemy wears no uniforms, flies no flag, drives cars without insignias, and mercilessly kills any target, including itself.

Kevlar is a good thing. When and if possible, vehicles and the soldiers who operate them should be protected. But there are variables to protection and war that no war critic can either predict or remove.

You know, if only people could think a little more slowly they wouldn't smash themselves into such silly little bits.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.