Get PJ Media on your Apple

Faster, Please!

The Meaning of Fallujah

January 8th, 2014 - 7:54 pm

That’s what happens when you deny reality and insist that you can achieve peace by making nice to your enemies;  you get more war, with even fewer good options than before.  George W. Bush bequeathed Obama a greatly weakened al-Qaeda, a lot of discouraged Islamists, and a cautious Iran.  Five years later, Obama faces rampant Islamic forces, new al-Qaeda armies, and an Iranian regime that believes he will bend to their wishes.

Our enemies expect to keep fighting until they have defeated us, even if they get beaten up along the way.  That’s Fallujah again, a sort of Islamist version of the Brezhnev doctrine:  once they’ve conquered territory, it’s rightfully theirs forever.  They think they’ve proven it.

Fallujah means we can expect things to get worse.  Why shouldn’t our enemies press ahead?  Wouldn’t you, in their boots?  And why should anyone think it’s strategically wise to bond with the new America?  The Egyptian generals will explain to you that the Americans can’t be trusted to support their friends.

Here in Washington, some pundits are saying that things are actually going well, since radical Sunnis and Shi’ites are killing one another.  The problem with this cheery outlook is that eventually one of them will win, and the winner won’t be good for us.  Moreover, Sunnis and Shi’ites have demonstrated they can work well together when the mission is killing Americans.

They can do that even when they’re killing one another.  Just wait.

(Thumbnail on PJM homepage created using a pair of modified Shutterstock.com images.)

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
You are wrong.

Most of these comments are only opposed with the methods used in the Iraq invasion, not the war itself. It is a belief that if Islam wishes to engage in a war "against the West and Freedom," then certain overwhelmingly lethal consequences are in order.

Americans are opposed to using concrete, non-exploding bombs (to save windows from being blown out) and sending young people into "battle" with the ends of their rifles welded shut, wearing big flashing neon signs that scream "Shoot Me," and practicing Social Work without the proper credentials or licensing.

Where I live and work, the support for the 2003 invasion was probably 90 percent. But as TV images of the scenes on the ground filtered in, and when it became obvious that the really suicidal ROE virtually mandated a draw or a loss, the popularity of it plummeted.

Lesson One of Vietnam: Don't expect the public to support an inconclusive war that pointlessly wastes young American lives.

I spoke to an old B-17 Ball Turret Gunner, who had a picture in his office of his glory days. Like he said, back then "We went to war to win."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I not only contemplate it, it is a nightmare that recurs.

You ever hear of the "shared" nightmare? One that unrelated people tell...like going to work in pajamas or underwear...or signing up for a class and never attending with the final exam coming.

We are all sharing the nightmare of the unholy coupling of small c communism with Muslim Brotherhood/Nation of Islam iron fisted tyranny.

We are painted into a corner as you suggest. Our laws mean nothing. The truth means nothing. Our allies mean nothing. Our borders mean nothing. Our homeland means nothing. Our freedom means nothing. And our honor means nothing.

That is a shared nightmare. One day, we all may awaken from it in a cold sweat.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Michael, low information America is war weary.

The Propaganda Machine wears down morale effectively and backs Obama and his cabal no matter what the maneuver, abandonment or disastrous result.

Then you have the Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan wing combining isolationism and very thinly veiled Jew hatred.

So, trying to make an argument that is at all layered, nuanced or requires visualizing four moves ahead or how things are connected, simply will not be absorbed.

The danger to the world...and to us and our interests is not "felt", therefore is repelled immediately.

Iran AND al Qaeda growing in power, influence, weapons, geography and ability to transport death and destruction is too abstract a concept for the subliminally defeated.

Once...we stood as the sentry against world domination aggression and mass murdering. Against totalitarian tyranny that threatened the world. No longer. We have shriveled our will. We have abandoned our post.

And, frankly...America at home more resembles than resents the totalitarian tyranny model.

The weary simply have rolled over and exposed our belly for the jackals.

Nobody "likes" war. And blaming "the Jews" for "starting them all", is a neat way for isolationists to find a nice scapegoat. (Also known as the "neocons, Israeli lobby, Zionists and other assorted "polite" terms)

Egypt, Saudi Arabia et al lost a strong sentry. Israel lost a friend. And America lost itself.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (103)
All Comments   (103)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I just can not agree that with the circumstance the USA is looking at that the USA has any reasonable options...but it has been my view since June 2003 that our goal in Iraq was to create a civil war to keep large amounts of Iraqi oil off the "world market"...Iraq puts out +/- 2,000,000/bbl/day now instead of the 8,000,000/bbl/day they are capable of exporting...The same oil numbers and goals apply to the USA policy towards Iran..

Why; because with 12,000,000 more barrels of oil per day production the price of oil would collapse to under $30/bbl; and since the USAs primary, must have at all cost, goal is: "a nice long lasting war and sell lots of weapons"....Proof, 100% proof...

If we had wanted to win this war and stop recruitment for Sunni/Shia/Qaeda et al; all we had/have to do is house the prisoners we take and the dead we create in pigskin; pigskin equals no virgins and no paradise, its their Kryptonite ...

We therefore know for a fact that we only want "a nice long lasting war and sell lots of weapons" c me 1991 and that these mid-east wars are only weapons deals financed by $100/bbl/oil
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
they called us occupiers we responded by saying we were just passing thru, when we were done liberating them they could have it all back. so are we an empire or not, everyone thinks we are. Maliki played liars poker with the weakest horse available. the status of forces poker game was won by Maliki. the question is how bad do the Iraqis want to remain sovereign? it seems time makes the heart grow fonder. what the jihadist couldn't do the CIC seems on schedule to do and that is the decimation of our military.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What bothers me also is that which seems to most "energize" Obama -- it's not opposing America's enemies -- rather Obama seems far more interested in strong-arming Israel to free murderous terrorists from prison; supporting vile adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; and cozying up to Iran to ease sanctions so they can more quickly obtain nuclear weapons (since I suppose in Obama's worldview, Iran is the strong horse which must be appeased and capitulated to). Basically the CiC is not acting in America's interests (to put it mildly).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment

In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.

Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a tiny minority of 'islamists’ and that soon the huge, silent, 'moderate majority' of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for 'moderates' to stand and deliver, identifying and removing 'extremist thugs' from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of searching for unicorns.

"Moderate" Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No "moderate" can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call 'moderates' are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. 'Moderates' will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be 'moderates' in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”

Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of 'extremists' can control a vast number of "moderates", making them irrelevant.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually they do condemn terrorism, but locally, where you're not likely to hear about it. Don't go by what Muslim apologists in the West say - you'll hear nothing but static from them. If you're talking about extra-national terrorism, do you feel compelled to hold a press conference when Christians commit crimes overseas? Silence isn't always as silent as it seems, and silence in and of itself is not tacit agreement. Islam is not an hegemony, and Egyptians aren't likely to apologize for what crazy Saudis do on airliners.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Parents of Marines don't want "the troops" sent onto the battlefield, believe thee me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Seems to me, but what do I know, that the smartest thing we could do is stand aside and hold their coats. If I remember correctly, Saddam and Iran went toe to toe for ten years, perhaps a bit less. Hundreds of thousands on BOTH sides were killed. I see no reason to not let it continue.
It'll certainly keep both of them occupied. And we certainly don't need to keep the seaways clear for the Chinese oil companies. Anything that stirs turmoil in the Middle East works to our advantage. Qatar and Saudi wish to get involved? The Muslim Brotherhood? Be our guests. Our advantage would be in confronting the last man standing. Weakened. Impoverished. Politically insecure. Where are the disadvantages?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
not to worry, we're not going to intervene to stop it. But open sea lanes are for us, we're not doing it for China. And it is possible that some one may win, and it may be Assad/Iran/Russia, with an al Qaeda army thrown in for halftime entertainment...it's a good time for political action/subversion/support for opposition in places like Iran.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If Russia wants a "win" out of that fetid, satantic hellhole....by all means! We should celebrate their entry into that never-ending blackhole.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's a tough situation right now Mr. Leeden, I for one supported us kicking the living crap out of al Queda, but now since we have left I just can't see us going back. Would it be possible that Iran can get bogged down in this Middle East fight they are engaged in. Then we could make our move? Of course after Obama is no longer in office.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Iran is up to its neck in Iraq, Syria & Lebanon, not to mention Africa. It's a great time to "make our move," which should NOT be military.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Today there are a new groups of al-Qaeda, because the terror masters are not hunted by president Obama. President George Bush fought them and hunted them to the ends of the earth!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"In the ebb and flow of the global war in which we are so reluctantly engaged, that was a moment to be seized. Instead, our new leaders judged it was the perfect time to walk away. They have been walking away ever since. And they had plenty of support, from deep within American tradition, from that oft-fatal conviction that peace is normal and war is an aberration, when the opposite defines human history. So we walked away, abandoning those who had staked their future to America’s commitment to freedom, and giving hope and time to our enemies..."

How silly of those people to stake their future on American commitments. Did they really think we'd wouldn't abandon them once the going got tough? We're AMERICANS. That's what we DO. The Vietnamese, the Iraqis, now the Afghans. Abandoning allies is the American way!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
one of my favorite lines, from a Turkish general: "The trouble with having the Americans for allies is that you never know when they're going to stab themselves in the back."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, I guess we've done it again. We have a pretty good record of not honoring our commitments in this way. From the first when we didn't honor the mutual aid agreement with the French after our Revolution, (agreed, their revolution kinda went to pot but still!) to the Barbary War where we were stopped for political reasons when we were on the doorstep of Tripoli.

I guess the Spanish/American war, WWI and WWII went pretty well but then we went right back to it in Korea and Vietnam and now this mess. When will we learn to either stay out of these messes or, if we do go in go into win. Our troops go in, give it their all, win the fight then get to watch as the politicians screw everything up and lose all that our troops fought for. It's just sickening.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
years ago I wrote a little book called "Freedom Betrayed; How America Won the Cold War, Led a Global Democratic Revolution, and Walked Away." Or something like that...it was during Clinton...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Korea doesn't belong on your list. We're still there.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It should be pointed out that the name of the Al Queda-linked Da’ash rebel group in Northern Syria stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All