[lit-ideas] Re: Radical Islam: The Primer

Andreas, 

 

This is part of the conversation I hate having.  Consider the first Gulf
War.  Whoops, it was never declared over.  There was a truce, but does that
mean the war was over?  Not in some senses of the word.  It was not over
until it was over and it was never over. Therefore the Second Gulf War was .
. . whoops.  How can there be a second Gulf War until the First Gulf War was
declared over?  

 

And even if the first Gulf War was over in a sense, not officially perhaps
but effectually in the sense that no one was fighting . . . whoops.  Iraq,
Britain and the U.S. never stopped fighting.  The US & Britain flew over the
Kurds & Shiites constantly to make sure that Militant Islamic leader, Saddam
Hussein wouldn't rush out there with some of his poison gas and kill them
for not supporting him during the First Gulf War which wasn't over because
it was still going on as evidenced by the fact that Saddam kept firing at
the US & British planes and they kept shooting back.  

 

And then one mustn't forget that even though we won the first Gulf War (well
sort-of because it was never over) and the Second Gulf War in the sense that
we defeated Iraq's chess team and captured its king, that didn't mean that
the larger War Against Terror was over because that would go on until . . .
well I guess until Terror was defeated - whatever that means.  

 

I prefer the more traditional uses of these terms.  It reduces the onslaught
of insanity.  The War was finished with the defeat of Saddam's army - or if
you want to see some larger war you could say that war part of the war, but
that sounds a bit silly.  What did the French call it after France had been
defeated and the Vichy government established?  Did the French insurgents
claim that they were still fighting the war?  Well they may have.  Did the
Germans think a war was still going in France?  I don't think so.  The Vichy
was being held accountable for the acts of their insurgents - and I see
signs that we will be holding the Iraqi government accountable in the same
way.  We're not going to fight your Shiite rebels for you.  We'll back you
up if you like, but they are your responsibility.  If you want your
government to be viable, you had better get them under control -- that sort
of thing.

 

If all we cared about was the traditional war sense of the term war, we
could have left after smashing the army and hunting down Saddam.  We could
have stuck his head on a pike (if we could find one) and trotted it up and
down Pennsylvania Avenue to the sound of blaring trumpets and honking horns.
But we have told ourselves that we should build Iraq into a Democratic
nation - if not a Liberal Democracy then as close to that as an Islamic
nation can come.  To say this is still part of the war is well maybe
something Bush might say, but it wouldn't be true - not in any traditional
sense.  The war is over but we have decided to stay there and make Iraq into
the very model of a modern Liberal Democracy . . . which we are having
trouble doing.  Does that mean we are losing the war?  Only if you like
confusing yourself.

 

Lawrence

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 11:36 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Radical Islam: The Primer

 

From: "Lawrence Helm"

 

 > Also, the Iraq war was another quick victory.  The War was won but the

> Nation Building effort has been a disaster.

 

The battle was won. But the war was lost.

 

There was no doubt that the USA would win the military invasion.
Overwhelming forces, 

technology, etc. That part was indeed a cakewalk.

 

But we went into the wrong situation with the wrong tools.

 

yrs,

andreas

www.andreas.com

Other related posts: