AL QAEDA AND IRAQ

I’ve been critical of many of this administration’s post-invasion mis-steps in Iraq, but I am still fervently in favor of winning this battle. You go to war with the president you have, to coin a phrase. We have no choice but to press on, refining political tactics, offering constructive criticism, supporting the troops, indeed providing more of them and more resources. Why? The answer is, to me, a simple one. Al Qaeda and the Jihadist forces have long had a battle-plan for the Islamic world – to turn it into a new Caliphate, use its oil revenues to wreak havoc on the free West, enslave Muslims in a new totalitarianism, and finish what Hitler started with respect to the Jewish people. The notion that our liberation of Iraq from Saddam has helped al Qaeda achieve these ends is, to my mind, oblivious to these underlying realities, which have been around for far longer than the past three years. In 2002, Saddam’s regime was teetering toward another generation of corrupt, half-mad dauphins eager to appease Jihadists if it served their purposes. Those who simply trust that Saddam could never have allied himself with these monsters are and were trusting Saddam, Uday and Qusay Hussein. Containment would not have stopped the threat. At some point the regime itself – a potential weapon of mass destruction in itself – had to be dealt with. There was a time when you could find almost no one – from Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Madeleine Albright to Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol – who disagreed. They all ruled out appeasement. At some point, we had to fight. And we had to fight in the central area of the Arab world because the stakes had risen too high to risk piece-meal measures. Al Qaeda knew this, but believed that the Vietnam syndrome would still prevent the West from real action soon enough. They were wrong at first, but they may be onto something now.

NO SURRENDER: Has our incompetence in Iraq helped al Qaeda? In the short term, in some respects, sure. Has our endorsement of detainee abuse and torture helped them in the propaganda war? Absolutely. Has the Bush team been reckless and stubborn and duplicitous at times? You bet. But you know what would help al Qaeda far more than any of these depressing developments? A Vietnam-style retreat now urged by some and predicted by al Qaeda. Just read the following text from one of Osama bin Laden’s henchmen to the leaders of the Iraq Sunni-Jihadist insurgency. It’s from July. It spells out al Qaeda’s and the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals for conquering Iraq and the entire region, goals that have been in existence for decades, goals that we ignored for far too long and appeased for even longer. Money quote:

If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly – according to how it appears to us – in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices-God permitting-are a large step directly towards that goal.

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

My raising this idea – I don’t claim that it’s infallible – is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

This is our enemy. These are the people who murdered over 3,000 people in cold blood on 9/11 in the heart of New York City. The battle-field, whether you like the way we got here or not, is Iraq. That’s how al Qaeda sees it, and they are absolutely correct. If we can beat them there and open up a space for civic engagement in a democratic Iraq, we will have struck at the heart of their strategy and made the world a far safer and better place – for us and for the vast bulk of Muslims. We simply cannot and must not falter against these religious fascists. This is still a religious war for religious and political freedom – and it’s one that liberals as well as conservatives should realize they need to support. I know and feel the distress at the leadership of president Bush. But he’s still the president; and he’s fighting a war we have no choice but to win.

A RELIGIOUS TEST?

If we are to construe that part of the rationale for the Miers nomination is her religious faith, then the nomination does indeed appear to be unconstitutional. An added irony is that the woman she would replace would be among the most opposed to such a test, as an alert reader has pointed out. In her concurring opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985, Sandra Day O’Connor wrote

“In my view, the Religion Clauses – the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Religious Test Clause, Art. VI, cl. 3, and the Equal Protection Clause as applied to religion – all speak with one voice on this point: absent the most unusual circumstances, one’s religion ought not affect one’s legal rights or duties or benefits. As I have previously noted, “the Establishment Clause is infringed when the government makes adherence to religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community.’ Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69 (1985) (O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment).”

My emphasis. Didn’t the president just make “adherence to religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community”? Does this president have even a rudimentary respect for the separation of church and state?

EMAIL FROM THE BASE

I wonder how prevalent this feeling is out there in the heart of RedStateland:

I think the odds that she will overturn Roe or Affirmative Action are zero-to-way-the-fuck-less-than-zero. And I stand by my prediction that this will be near-catastrophic for the Republican Party. As you have pointed out they have lost the fiscal high ground. They have governed ineffectively. Democrats, OTOH, balanced the budget and cut welfare. They are looking pretty good right about now, aren’t they?
I grew up with, was marinated in, and for some reason continue to live deeply among, the ‘Southern conservative base’. I’ve been to the conservative churches, parties, PTA meetings, gatherings, etc. They will ABSOLUTELY sit on their hands in ’06 and ’08. I think that aspect of this has been way under-explored. If Harry turns out to be a centrist or left-of-center, Republicans are dead meat.
REMEMBER: we only need about 4% of conservatives to sit out, much less vote Democratic, to totally screw up the party. And I think it’ll be more like 20% here in the South. Over the Supreme Court alone.
This is a ticking time bomb, and anyone, including Bush, including Miss Laura, that thinks otherwise, is living in a dream world.

For fiscal conservatives like me, the betrayal has already been about as deep and vast as it could be. For neocons like me, the bungling of Iraq has been, to say the least, distressing. But if you’re a theocon or religious righter who doesn’t really care that much about spending or Iraq but whose fundamental goal is to wrench the country back to a pre-Griswold Eden, the shit has only just hit the fan. So Bush destroys another base of support. Who’s left?

BRASSO! Another tactic in the iPod nano-scratch debate.

BASIC BUDGET FACTS

The Bush explosion of government spending needs more exploration. Heritage has put together a PDF document you can find here with all the relevant facts – from the government’s own records. Some data: Washington now spends a record $22,000 a year per household. Defense and 9/11-related spending accounted for less than half the growth in spending between 2001 and 2003. Overall federal spending is accelerating in Bush’s second term, not declining as he promised. Entitlement spending is set to explode in the next decade or so – requiring massive spending cuts, huge tax hikes, or real entitlement reform. Bush has made the entitlement problem far worse rather than better in his first five years. Under the post-1994 Republican Congress, pork barrel spending has gone from around $10 billion to $25 billion today. The number of “earmarks” under today’s Republicans has gone from 1,439 in 1995 to 13,999 this year so far. The feds cannot account for $24.5 billion spent in 2003. This is what big government conservatism does for you. Happy now?

IRAQ AND VIETNAM

Zawahiri is banking on the analogy to bring victory to the Islamo-fascists. Former secretary of defense, Melvin Laird, has other ideas about how to win long-term in the region. I’m with Laird. He’s also candid about the Bush administration’s horrifying embrace of detainee abuse:

For me, the alleged prison scandals reported to have occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay have been a disturbing reminder of the mistreatment of our own POWs by North Vietnam … The minute we begin to deport prisoners to other nations where they can legally be tortured, when we hold people without charges or trial, when we move prisoners around to avoid the prying inspections of the Red Cross, when prisoners die inexplicably on our watch, we are on a slippery slope toward the inhumanity that we deplore.

Amen.

EMAIL OF THE DAY II

“The email you posted re: Gonzales’s qualification is ridiculous. Whether or not he’s qualified in some absolute sense — a point I don’t wish to engage with — I think it’s hard to say that his record is qualitatively different from Miers’s. Your emailer, of course, tries to dismiss the fact that he had a stronger education and that he was a Texas Supreme Court judge. “Token year,” indeed. But rather than trying to ignore his qualifications, let’s lay them out:

– Attorney General
– Texas Supreme Court judge
– Adjunct law professor
– Secretary of State of Texas
– Rice, Harvard Law graduate

So let’s line those up:
– while Miers was White House Counsel, Gonzales was AG
– while Miers was a staff secretary, Gonzales was White House Counsel
– while Miers was heading up the Texas State lotto, Gonzales was a Texas Supreme Court judge and Texas Secretary of State
– both of them were in private practice roughly comparable times; my understanding is that Vinson & Elkins, Gonzales’s firm, may have been slightly more prestigious, but let’s call this a wash, or in Miers’s favor, since she headed up the firm while Gonzales was merely a partner; both received numerous accolades, etc.; Miers may win out slightly here
– while Miers was at SMU Law, Gonzales was at Harvard Law
– while Miers was at SMU, Gonzales was at Rice

Now, I don’t want to weigh in on the absolute qualifications of either candidate, and I don’t know how much you can say about how good a justice someone will make from his c.v. But Gonzales has judicial experience, high-level policy-making experience (for what it’s worth), and experience dealing with the very best legal minds (whether when collaborating with other Texas Supreme Court judges, when heading up the Justice Departmnet, or when studying under Harvard Law professors).

I think it does an extreme disservice to the concept of (paper) merit to equate these two records. Maybe your emailer thinks Gonzales has been a slouch in his jobs, while Miers has been an ace. But he suggests that we should look only at their paper experience, and that from that they are roughly equivalent. That argument is flat out wrong.”