Two Faces of Conservatism

At war with Islam or not…

With Bush, the presidential election and the war in Iraq as its backdrop, the divergence of conservatism is amazing. On one side conservatives are pressing as hard as ever in trying to show support for the Iraq war. While this is an understandable position, it flies in the face of those conservatives that believe we are in a war against Islam. So how does one reconcile that we are in a war to bring democracy and stability to a country of Muslims and yet proclaim a war against these very Muslims? Why are we concerned with Mideast peace when we could simply have Israel rid the West Bank of Palestinians and be done with it? I do not understand this and I would like someone to explain it to me.

Winning... by how much we’ll never know

This winning in Iraq thing is something that I am debating on Dee’s blog. I hear the minions on Fox News state how we are winning in Iraq but the odd part about this is that we’re not fighting in Iraq. We’re standing in the gap to ensure that the real fight that is taking place doesn’t escalate. It is the Sunni and Shia sects that are fighting with the Kurds standing idly by waiting to proclaim independence. Outside of body counts, no one is providing the American people exactly what we are getting for our weekly $5 billion investment. Security? I imagine that we could achieve the same level of security we have today for far less money and strain on our military.

Supporting the troops…as long as they fight

Here is where the two faces of Conservatism really hit the road. The squabble over adorning patriotic symbols and spew “support the troop” slogans while our men and women in uniform struggle when they return from Iraq. The military is discharging soldiers for “personality dysfunctions” so they can avoid paying disability caused by PTSD. As stated earlier, no one has a problem spending $5 billion a week to send soldiers to war but balk at paying $50 billion over ten years to assist these soldiers after they’ve given their pound of flesh – or arms, legs, brains, and some their lives. How sickening is it to say to a soldier that after 4 years, 2 tours in Iraq, you still have not sacrificed enough to earn tuition cost to a public university? Sad.

More Signs of the Apocalypse... in a scarf

Michelle Malkin, noted right-wing, manic, fuming, windbag conservative blogger took issue with a scarf that Rachel Ray (my current crush focus) wore for a billboard promoting Dunkin Donuts. She suggested in her, “I’m not suggesting” way that Rachel’s choice of apparel may indicate that the Food Channel diva supports terrorist. Michele says the scarf is a kaffiyeh - a scarf worn by women in the Middle East.

The funny thing about this is that these same Conservatives get on black people for seeing conspiracies in everything. Ok… the government created to AIDS to kill black people – they laugh it off. Police brutality is a problem. They don’t see it – even when it comes with a video of a black man getting his azz whooped on a LA street or a plunger is pulled from the anus of a black man. But now we have a moonbat “suggesting” that the type of scarf someone wears could place them into the terrorist sympathizer camp. Watch out! Your next trip to Ambercrombie & Fitch could get you labeled and enemy combatant. I guess opium and terrorist aren’t the only exports from Afghanistan that we need to worry about.

So sad!!!


7 Responses to Two Faces of Conservatism

  1. Dave Miller Says:
    Nice post James. Good to see you writing again.
  2. The WordSmith from Nantucket Says:

    You might be interested in this post of mine.

    Yes, I believe some of my fellow conservatives are being too unbalanced by over-reading Robert Spencer, and taking away from it, an unbridled fury at everything Islam. If we're at war with the religion (making President Bush not pro-war on terror anti-Islam enough for them), then what are we doing wasting our time helping Muslims in Iraq regain stability and security?

    Another case in point.
  3. MataHarley Says:
    You said: "...the odd part about this is that we’re not fighting in Iraq. We’re standing in the gap to ensure that the real fight that is taking place doesn’t escalate."

    Very perceptive, James Manning. Agreed, with perhaps a tad of variation, IMHO.

    The three sects have indeed been at odds historically. They are now learning how to share a certain amount of power thru a central govt. I believe their upcoming provincial govt elections will help ease the passage from a complete violent dictatorship to cooperative power sharing. We shall see. But they have had no experience at this stuff. I tend to want to give them time to adjust to such an alien notion.

    And I am of the belief that until their govt formally asks us to leave, we stay and aid them. To refuse a fledgling Arab democracy in it's infancy is against everything this nation has stood for. Especially since we either 1: inflicted this upon them with regime change, or 2: gave them this opportunity. I think of it as #2, but many feel closer to #1. Either way, we owe it to an ally to be there for them.

    I see Wordsmith has beat me here to check out your blog. I found your FA postings, tho with opinions that disagree with my own, intriguing. You strike me as an American that, altho we can disagree, we are the same at heart. Well spoken and polite as well. I hope you will be a regular at FA.
  4. James Manning Says:
    Welcome to the blog wordsmith and MatHaley. I am of the thought that the Iraq war needs to come to end and sooner more than later. There is no way to leave a country in perfect condition and I certainly don't think we should equate Iraq with the wider war on terror. That is setting us up for a long haul.
  5. MataHarley Says:
    I can safely say that I, and probably most others, are again in total agreement that ending the US participation in Iraq sooner rather than later is preferable. However the sooner can not be so soon as to risk their possibilities at self-sustainment.

    Nor do I expect we demand a "perfect Iraq" as a criteria, James. After over two centuries, even the US is not sans crime and violence. We can hardly expect that of another.
    So again, we are in agreement.

    I will, however, dispute your thought that Iraq is not a part of the overall war against the global Islamic jihad movement. For that, I shall defer to just the most recent words of Zawahiri himself, in his Open Meeting a couple of months ago. This is not, however, the only reference to Iraq as part of their war.
    Question: “What is demanded of the Mujahideen sitting in the land of the Quiver [Egypt] in the coming stage? And how can we carry it out in the absence of capabilities and the absence of centers for training and preparation and the absence of sources of funding for Jihadi work?”

    Answer: We ask the Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere to follow in their countries the methods which we mentioned in the previous answer. And whoever isn’t able to do that must go forth to the open arenas of Jihad like Somalia, Iraq, Algeria and Afghanistan. And whoever isn’t able to do that must back the Mujahideen with financing, opinion, information and invitation in schools, universities, unions and mosques, and by taking care of the families of the Mujahideen’s captives and martyrs and specializing in the beneficial legal and practical sciences which are of use to the Jihad and Mujahideen, like the jurisprudence of Jihad, legal policy, communications, electronics, chemistry, topography and otherwise, and by mastering the techniques of Jihadi information media.

    At my own blog's post on this April 4th are other pertinent excepts... plus, more importantly, the link to the Open Meeting translation so you can read it in it's entirety yourself. We are still waiting for the translation of Part Two of this Open Meeting.

    This means that while you may not Iraq a battlefront - or an "open arena of Jihad" - the enemy does. It is only logical. Geographically it is the garden spot of the Middle East with a seaport, the two fresh water rivers in the region, and rich in natural resources as a source of money flow to finance their agenda. Yes, even terrorists care about oil as it is a weapon in their arsenal against the west and our industrial needs.

    It is also situated inbetween two future adversaries in it's plan - Iran and Syria, both Hezbollah centers and diametrically opposed their ultimate goals. In the Open Forum, Zawahiri addresses Iran as well... how he will sit back and let the US-Iran weaken each other (in his words, "if the war saps both of them"). He says at that time, "fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region."
  6. James Manning Says:
    You're quoting a guy that is cowering in a cave in the mountains of Pakistan. Without support from the government - as is the case with the Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qaeda has no power to establish itself. I would also submit to you that even without American support, al-Qaeda has only a fleeting prospect of surviving in Iraq.

    And we must live the fact that there will always be some extremist in the world to deal with. We're not sending troops to Somalia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan or Iran to defend our national security against the Jihadist. But my point is not that we shouldn't fight this battle but that we should utilize our resources more effectively. Spending $5 billion a week is not the answer.
  7. MataHarley Says:
    Yeah, I like that "cowering in a cave" reality, James. Then again, the only reason he is can be attributed to first, Afganistan; and second, Iraq.

    They were driven thru their planned back doors, into Pakistan, after US coalition/NATO efforts in Afghanistan. However, he may not still be in a cave, had they been able to gain foothold in Iraq. Zarqawi had been operating there since 1998, and Zawahiri had been dealing with Saddam since 1993 in his Egyptian Islamic Jihad days. The first WTC bombers in '93 came in via Iraqi passports.

    Saddam was a revolving door of entry and exit for extreme militants. He used them as state weapons against common enemies when convenient, and turned a blind eye other times. This is because of the alliances between them, and many in his IIS and Ba'athist organizations.

    Point is, the middle events have much to do with Zawahiri's cave digs today. However do not discount his influence over the associated AQ membership *not* cowering in caves. The Pakistan neo-Taliban (the new breed that fights with the original Mulla Omar Taliban/Afghanistan) and their militant forces are quite devoted to the AQ cause. This is why Bhutto's assassination was partly reported as AQ (in the west) and also associated with Baitullah Meshud's Taliban (in Pak reports). They act as one and the same oft time.

    We've sent troops before to Somalia... you do remember that outcome in 1993? Another result of AQ training, perhaps in conjunction with Saddam, who was also running operations against Americans in Somalia simultaneously.

    Pakistan and Egypt are considered allies in some degree. We don't attack allies... at least now we don't. Obama's promised to break that courteous rule upon receiving "actionable intelligence".

    Iran and Syria? Both running thru the int'l community/diplomatic channels right now. The world's path with them is yet to be revealed.

    But I do agree there can always be more streamlining and efficiency. Then again, we are talking govt... that may be pushing the bar pretty high for a bunch that proves inefficiency in *all* aspects of performance, eh?