Tuesday, March 25, 2008

4000 people die for political correctness

Strange, it seems, right? That I am on the same page as Barack Obama on the perhaps most pressing foreign policy issue of our time: the war in Iraq.

My opposition to our current course in Iraq is based on a single idea:

Iraq WILL NOT become a stable democracy with a strong central government.

Now, the reasons why is what makes me different from liberals. My primary position isthat the Iraqi IQ is far too low and the people to insular to be able to overcome tribal and religious allegiances necessary to build a functioning democratic government.

And it is not fair to make our soldiers die because of this fantasy.

So, because every new death is one death too much, we must gamble on the Biden plan to create strong regional governments. To do any less would be to favor ideology over the lives of our soldiers.

Remember what happened in Falluja?

The four armed contractors, Scott Helvenston, Jerry (Jerko) Zovko, Wesley Batalona, and Michael Teague, were dragged from their cars, beaten, and set on fire. Their burned corpses were then dragged through the streets before being hung over a bridge crossing the Euphrates.[6][7] This bridge is unofficially referred to as "Blackwater Bridge" by Coalition Forces operating there.

A group of boys yanked a smoldering body into the street and ripped it apart. Someone then tied a chunk of flesh to a rock and tossed it over a telephone wire.

Iraqi people are not simply Americans in the middle east. They are a product of a violent and hateful religion as well as a culture that puts tribe over all else. They have no concept of minority rights, power sharing, or democratic secularism. They are a generation that has grown up under the trauma of the Iran-Iraq war. They are a country that tolerated the use of chemical weapons against 20,000 innocent Kurds. They are a people that do not hesitate to behead their enemies, and send their loved ones to be suicide bombers.

And, most importantly, they are a country without a national identity.

Is this worth dying for?


Anonymous said...

nice blog friend :) visit me at http://rokoksalemforex.blogspot.com regards from MALAYSIA :)

Anonymous said...

No they are not. But retreating in the face of tribal aggression only guarantees more of it. Of course they will follow us home if we withdraw.

The reality is, globalization and tribalism put primitive, aggressive, tribal peoples, where authority is distributed and any would-be chieftan need only attack the US to gain honor, glory, authority (and access to scarce women) means a constant tribal warfare.

Tribes ALWAYS engage in war. War is the normal condition of tribes. They are hostile and gain peace only by fighting external enemies. Wade (Before the Dawn) and Keeley(War Before Civilization) point out that the murder rate as shown by graves of pre-European contact Eskimos is roughly 4% per annum, which matches the experience of most tribes. This includes all -- men, women, kids. Since there are no non-combatants in tribal warfare.

We can't escape from this. Neo-cons sought the usual US response, put tribes on "reservations" and change their tribal ways, worked with US Indians (and Australian aborigines) not with Muslims. Too many and tribalism too strong. The other way is to use rival tribes (like Navajos against Geronimo) to kill the tribes one by one. Somewhat what we are doing in Iraq. Along with a patronage effort.

Tribes in Pakistan effectively control nukes. I'll submit 40,000 US dead would be an acceptable trade for keeping NYC intact.

Like it or not, we are either the "strong tribe" too dangerous to attack, or we get attacked. That's it. There is no disengagement in the globalized era.

Obama is a fool. He thinks we can get a Congress of Vienna with Muslim "leaders" when Muslims are TRIBAL. Guranteeing some guy will attack the US just to rise in leadership.