With the surge, we are assured that there will be a plan of some sorts following a commanders intent that every PFC and Lance Corporal will know all the way down to villages and city blocks.

And if those who are judging the military operation in Iraq to be a failure, how are we to judge the diplomatic corps track record in the Muslim world?  Oslo, Wye River anyone?



"Ye Christian dogs, you know your options, the Koran, the tribute or the sword..." was the bargaining position of the Mohammedan General Khalid bin Al-Waleed when he encountered the Romans (Byzantines) in Syria. [Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Chapter LI]

According Pakistani Lieutenant-General A.I. Akram (deceased), who penned a biography of Khalid,  the bargain offered the Romans was the same offered to a Persian Governor the campaign to spread Islam through Mesopotamia:

"Submit to Islam and be safe. Or agree to the payment of the Jizya, and you and your people will be under our protection, else you will have only yourself to blame for the consequences, for I bring a people who desire death as ardently as you desire life."

The demands of the Mohammedan jihadist have not changed over the course of 13 centuries and are not likely to change with a diplomatic offensive.

The jihadists bargain for a fellow believer is even harder--follow their interpretation of the Koran and Sharia Law or the sword.

The Mohammedan jihadists are one of the factions causing instability in Iraq.  They do not want a political solution, but this glaring problem is glossed over by the promoters of a political solution.

In opposing the surge, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered this brilliant alternative:

"Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution to the sectarian problems in their country until they understand that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended. Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it." [Emphasis added]

Of course the Senator from Nevada never spells out exactly what those necessary steps are.

Senator Carl Levin follows in the same vein:

"An escalation of American troops is a flawed strategy for two reasons: it implies that there is a military solution to the violence when what's needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders, and it suggests that the future of Iraq is in our hands, not theirs,"

And Speaker Nancy Pelosi argues:

"In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq."

Senator Hillary Clinton's solution is capping the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq and:

"I propose putting conditions on the funding that we provide to the Iraqis… including making the political compromises that have been called for now for two years.''

Like Reid's neccessary steps, Clinton's set conditions and compromises were not articulated.

The err in the distinguished members solutions is the assumption that those doing the bombing, assassinating and kidnapping are willing to accept a political solution--to accept a compromise.

It is like they have become so used to compromising their principles that they do understand that there are those who will not yield.

In his most recent video taped message, Ayman al-Zawahri, the deputy leader of Al Qaida, said: 

"I want to tell the Republicans and the Democrats together ... you are trying to negotiate with some parties to secure your withdrawal, but these parities won't find you an exit (from Iraq) and your attempts will yield nothing but failure."

He also went to say:

"Those who are trying to liberate the Islamic territories through elections based on secular constitutions, or on decisions to hand over Palestine to the Jews, will not liberate one grain of sand of Palestine."

Zawahri's admonition is not an invitation to negotiate, it is nuanced offering of Khalid's bargain.  If a political solution was acceptable to Al Qaida, they would not be criticizing Hamas which participated in and won elections in the Palestinian territory.

It was not too long ago that a certain Democrat candidate for President said the war in Iraq was a distraction from the real war on terror and Al Qaida.  But it is obvious there are plenty of Mohammaden jihadists in Iraq who, though not formally employed by AQI, share the same beliefs.  Zawahri believes that his faction alone can cause enough terror to keep Iraq unstable.  By offering himself as a party who should be negotiated with, he is admitting at Al Qaida is in Iraq, but a political solution is unacceptable to Al Qaida.

(If a political solution to the one of the key players, Al Qaida,    is unacceptable, and if Al Qaida was--up until two years ago the real target of the war on terror--why on earth would anyone advocate a political solution, unless they are willing not only to abandon Iraq, but also the hunt for Al Qaida?)

Advocating a compromise when one party to the problem refuses to compromise is advocating that the conflict continue.



"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and
the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes."
-Karl Von Clausewitz

A former soldier reminded me of Clausewitz' maxim today.  He thinks that the administration has become so focused on the means that it has forgotten the goal.

The reverse could be said of those opposing the surge.  They focus solely on the goal, stability, and offer no means to get to the political compromise that will bring stability.

They, like Senator Reid, speak of necessary steps, but do not define those steps.

If AQI, Badr, Mahdi and assassins, bombers and kidnappers of the various other armed groups refuse to compromise, they must be forced to compromise or eliminated.

AQI refuses to compromise, therefore, they must be eliminated.  The elimination will require violent force.  Hence the surge.



While Badr, Mahdi and various other factions have taken part in political parties, elections and civil government, there are those who are not satisfied.

Those who are not satisfied have decided to engage in violence--they have already rejected political compromise.

Unlike the distinguished members of Congress, most policy analysts and most reporters, my time in Iraq spanned months not days and most of it was outside the wire.

It is very easy to be a terrorist--just ask the Israeli military.

Those that refuse to compromise will continue their violent ways and it will be covered by the Western media further pressuring U.S. politicians to come up with a solution.

But there is only one solution, the elimination of those who refuse a political solution.  Once they are eliminated, a political solution will be viable.

Harsh.  Yes, so are the options offered by our enemy, the Koran, the tribute or the sword.

And so, the sword it must be.

---