Better Late Than Never

Iraqi army increasingly bolstered by Shiite militias as ISIS advances – The Washington Post

In a darkened living room in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City, a gray-haired militia commander picked up his phone Friday to read a text message from one of his colleagues on the battlefield.

“Captured six ISIS members in an ambush,” it said, referring to militants from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, an al-Qaeda splinter group whose advance over the past 10 days has nearly brought the Iraqi state to its knees. “At dawn I killed two, four I gave to the army.”

The message was an example of what members of Iraq’s Shiite militias describe as growing cooperation with the country’s army. As Iraq spirals into chaos, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now relying on the militias, which once carried out hundreds of attacks on U.S. soldiers, to help him cling to power.

Let the Shia militias kill the Saudi-sponsored Sunni savages.  It’s what we should have done starting about a week after Baghdad fell.  Too bad the Bush family was in thrall to the Oilbag Royal Family, and so the notion was a non-starter.

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Better Late Than Never — 13 Comments

  1. It’s what we should have done starting about a week after Baghdad fell.

    Pree-cisely. Two basic, very simple principles involved:

    1) Do not interfere with your enemies when they are engaged in destroying each other.

    2) My personal favorite from Games People Play – “Let’s you and him fight – we’ll keep score”

  2. Civil war within Islam is not necessarily its natural state. Islam is also capable of founding large empires and powerful caliphates. What we see today is the result of a regional power vacuum. What happens if one side wins and a nuclear caliphate is the result? Technologically, Islam fell behind the West perhaps a thousand years ago (maybe less, but it was a long time ago), but it has always been able to buy military technology from the West – the guns that knocked down the walls of Constantinople, for example, were designed and built by a Hungarian (or German) engineer. Native technology certainly never gave Pakistan the nuke, just as Iran cannot do it without Western technology, so a caliphate could be very dangerous in our infiltrated and politically correct world.

    I used to think that encouraging Islamic civil war was a good idea, and I sill do, but I have realized that preventing one side from winning is probably just as important. I am reminded of England’s ancient strategy of always aligning itself in European conflict in a way that opposed the unification of Europe under a single power.

    Should we not play this game, which goes a step beyond encouraging civil strife?

    • Well…it’s a delicate balance to strike, but – there is the time-honored strategy of (covertly) selling or giving a roughly-equal amount of mid-level destructive wherewithal to BOTH sides, thus keeping the internecine action going as long as possible – then, when both sides are sufficiently weakened, swatting both of them flat.

      Highly-unlikely to ever happen, of course, but a perhaps-useful idea…

    • Islam founded empires and maintained caliphates, but they always fell, either riven from inside or destroyed from the outside – the Khans were particularly good at accomplishing the second.

      Islam requires a static, totalitarian heirarchy. Faced with any significant opposition, either from within or without, and it explodes into collapse.

      It is a throwback to a medieval time, and it has not changed much. It is this very inability to change – hard coded into the religion itself – that makes it incapable of surviving long in modernity. Which is why it hates modernity so much.

  3. Engineers call such systems “brittle”.

    I often hear that what we need is for a Muslim equivalent of Martin Luther to come along and reform Islam. In fact, that is exactly what happened. Just as Luther reformed Christianity by returning to scripture as sole authority (sola scriptura), so too does the Islamic equivalent, Osama bin Ladin. To accord with the Muslim Reformation, one must accept that there are only two kinds of Muslims: jihadi and apostates.

  4. Too bad the Bush family was in thrall to the Oilbag Royal Family, and so the notion was a non-starter.

    I doubt if anything would have been different no matter who was in charge at the time. We can blame Bush because he was at the helm at the time, but I do not think that it would have mattered who was in charge at the time. I first heard of Saudi influence buying in the 1970’s and that it did not discriminate against any political flavor, anybody that could be bought would be bought.

    • I’m not missing your point. You say:

      We can blame Bush because he was at the helm at the time, but I do not think that it would have mattered who was in charge at the time.

      Now, unless the meanings of words in English has changed a great deal, you are claiming in fact, no matter who sat in the White House (or anywhere else) the United States was, in fact, controlled by the Saudi royal family.

      I consider that a stretch. America is governed by individual people. If Bush had not been controlled by the Saudis (as I believe he was) he would have acted differently.

      You claim is that whether he was controlled or not, no matter what he did, the Saudi influence on the Ruling Class would have prevented him from doing anything they didn’t approve of.

      I don’t buy it. Had he been a true leader, he could have accomplished a great deal more. But he wasn’t.

      UPDATE: Let me note that for all my dislike of Barack Obama, he doesn’t seem to be in the pocket of the Royal Oilbags, and has, in fact, acted against their interests more than once.

        • I’m the conspiracy guy, remember? His number one adviser was born in Iran.

          He hasn’t been doing the Saudis any favors. But he’s certainly given the Mad Mullah Shias a hand up against the Saudi Sunnis – despite all the howling from the bought and paid for Saudi surrogates in our Ruling Classes.

          Which serves to underline my original point: The Saudi surrogates in the U.S. can’t shape U.S. policy without the cooperation of the President.

          They had that from GWB, for whatever reason. They don’t, for whatever reason, from BHO.

Leave a Reply