Captain's Quarters -

Captain said:

Even after his truce fell apart with the tribes of Waziristan, even after the Red Mosque standoff, Musharraf had tried to find some accommodation with the radicals.

Which proves two things:

1) It demonstrates the utter futility of trying to deal with murderous fanatics through negotiation, compromise, diplomacy, "talking to the enemy", "accomodation" etc.

and:

2) It demonstrates the utter futility of having allies that won't fight the enemy they are alleged to be allied against.

The Bush administration (and the right) is engaging in the fantasy that we can win the war against the Islamic totalitarians by using our military as a domestic police force in Iraq and Afghanistan, while leaving untouched all the major sponsors of terrorism and those who give them sanctuary: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. This is akin to thinking that we could have defeated Imperial Japan in WWII by merely liberating the Solomon Islands and leaving our military there to act as a police force, while leaving untouched all of Imperial Japan's home islands and other military bases spread all over Indochina. That strategy would not have worked in WWII and will not work against Totalitarian Islam today, as the last six years have proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Democrats and the left, of course, are even worse. They have no strategy for victory, not even one that can be called a fantasy -- in fact, many on the left want us to lose and think we deserve to lose.

The essential problem is that the left has convinced most Americans that we do not have the moral right to use the force necessary to destroy those who attack and threaten us. As a result, we use the minimum force possible in a civilian-friendly, limited, JAG-policed effort under highly restrictive rules of engagement -- and when that, predictably, turns into a long, drawn-out, futile affair, the left uses the result to argue against ALL offensive military operations. Sadly, they’ve mostly succeeded with that argument.

So we are doomed to slow-bleed until there is another horrific attack on America. We can only hope that when it happens, it enrages us enough to really do something about the source of the problem.

For an overview of a proper strategy for defeating totalitarian Islam, read this: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

I wonder what the reaction would be if Pakistani forces captured or killed Bin Laden and/or Zawahiri? I mean, the left constantly rails against Pakistan for "harboring" terrorists despite the great record Pakistan has in rounding up said terrorists, and despite the fact that the majority of remaining terrorists are inside Pakistan, but in an area that is not under Pakistani control-the tribal areas.

It'd be interesting to see.
It'd be interesting to see UBL paraded into Gitmo in autumn orange
It'd be interesting to see the Bush-haters' response (as if it's not already written up. "In case of Bin Laden capture, break glass, read press release asking why it took so long, and then call Rush a traitor, O Reilly a racist, and so forth before people realize the benefit to capturing AQ leaders")

Have Courage Michael Smith. The stupidity of our enemies is undermining the Deomcrats vacillating, hectoring and woefully inadequate foreign policy pronoucements.

Ahmedinajad's foolish pronouncements about filling the vacuum when the US leaves Iraq, his threats against Israel, his defiance against UN nuclear inspectors, his attacks on groups like women and gays not to mention the old complaints about arming groups to kill Americans in Iraq and couterfeiting US currency.

Al Qaida/Taliban threatens to kill Bhutto after attempts to assasinate Musharraf who had reached a deal with them allowing them to rebuild. Creating chaos at the Red Mosque in the capital where typically people were ignoring the radicals in the northwest but now were forced to see that there was danger in their own neighborhoods.

Bashir Assad attempting to acquire nuclear weapons with Iranian and North Korean assistance and trying to assasinate his way back into power in Lebanon. Is Pelosi not looking foolish?

Hamas turning Gaza into a nightmare. Hezbollah in Lebanon brandishing the new rockets they brought in despite the UN restictions and peacekeepers.

Just as Saddam's stupidity undermined the anto-war left's efforts in the lead up to both Iraq wars, all of these things will make a pacifist, anti-military, pro-Palestinian left look ridiculous and at some point, even the Democrats will have to step away from them or suffer.

"The return of Bhutto to Pakistani politics heralds a new era of moderate civilian control to Pakistan, cementing an alliance that will keep the Islamists at the margins. They understand this danger and have responded to it in their traditional manner -- bloodthirsty violence, or at least the threat of it."

"...He has almost concluded an alliance with Benazir Bhutto, who favors a hard-line approach to the Islamists. She even went so far as to endose American action in Waziristan at one point, which has earned her the undying enmity of the Islamists there. If Musharraf and Bhutto conclude an alliance, the Islamists know that they're the target."

Mr. Morrissey:

Sometimes Wikipedia isn't merely Jimbo's Big Bag o' Trivia. Well written and reseached entries by learned people do get published without great tampering by power-lusters, cranks, RPGers, WoWers and Jimbo Wales' toadies.

The Pakistan article isn't too bad. I recommend it to you in hope you will understand that the Bhutto/Musharraf deal, far from auguring some new hopeful era, is part and parcel of the cycle of Pakistani politics - military coup & crackdown; exile of politicians; war against India; disgrace after loss; coup leader trying & failing to hang on to power; return of civilian rule; politicians lying, stealing the country blind, being bought and sold; popular revulsion; military coup & crackdown....

I notice also your use of the terms "Islamic Extremist", "Islamist" & "moderate". Certainly there are theologically good muslims and bad muslims, and there are violent muslims and non-violent.

However if for all muslims Mohammed is "al-insan al-kamil, uswa hasana", the role model, the perfect man who is to be emulated; and we can readily discover he was mentally ill: a man/boy lover who hated adult/adult homosexuality, a rapist of a 9 y/o girl, a thief, a liar, a racist, a slaver, a torturer & mass murderer who glorified his crimes in the Qur’an for the ages; and we know Osama bin Laden, Sheikh Nasrallah, Abu Mazen & Ahmadinejad justify their acts quoting in context chapter & verse of the Qur’an, without theological or tangible opposition from so-called "moderate" muslims of peace & good will, because there is no justification in Islam for peace & good will with kafirs (us); then Mr. Morrissey, isn't an "Islamic Extremist" or "Islamist" really a good faithful muslim who takes his religion seriously & a so-called "moderate" an unreliable to us of the West who neither rejects evil nor embraces good?

If you will tolerate another question, & do look at it from a good muslim's perspective, why do you think Benazir Bhutto, having failed twice to survive as leader in a muslim society that rejects any woman's leadership or public role will succeed this time? (recall Nilofar Bakhtiar, the Pakistani tourism minister who was threatened with death & compelled to resign with her enemies [good muslims] using the reason that after her first parachute jump she [immodest harlot not knowing her place] hugged her instructor [a kafir] with joy.)

Musharaff now has carte blanche to pursue the Islamists and jihadis at will.

Bhutto has gotten on board with her statements about going after Islamists in Waziristan and the Northwest, and has been threatened directly by these same jihadis, adding gravitas to her statements. Musharaff has gained a powerful political ally.

Both Musharaff and Bhutto need a stablized Pakistan so they can both move forward with their political agendas, different in details as they are, but both look toward a stable prosperous Pakistan.

The jihadis tried to intimidate all of Pakistan. They got the Pakistani middle class set firmly against them in the process. Bhutto and Musharaff both need this same middle class.

Musharaff changing the command of the Paki military was planned a number of months ago. He is playing chess. Most of the people in the West, especially those who view Musharaff as a dim bulb or puppet of Bush, are hard pressed to play a good game of checkers.

As for OBL, if the Pakistani's round him up, dead or alive, I am positive the Western Press will come out swinging with some sort of conspiracy that Musharaff had him all along and was only holding him incommunicado till the right time so Bush could "use" OBL's capture as a means to ensure a Republican victory in '08.

Msharaff has chosen to play the game purposely. Quietly, making alliances within Pakistani political circles, and engendering the loyalty of the military today, who, by the way, are far better trained and far more devoid of Islamist supporting commanders, that they have ever been since Partititon.

Musharaff is now able to define the battle space according to his timetable, something that is key to their destruction and defeat. Something else that has gone largely unnoticed is that Musharaff has also bolstered forces in Baluchistan along the Iranian border over the past year. Simply protecting his flank.

If the allied forces in Afghanistan continue to push into Helmand and the Afghan Southeast, and Musharaf pushes into Waziristan, with his Baluch flank protected, where are the jihadis going to go? Caught in a vise, fairly easy for methodical destruction. None of this could have happened a year ago or even a few months or even weeks ago.

It is not over yet, this war against the jihadis in Pakistan, but Musharaff is now positioned far far better than he was just a few weeks ago.