Another American Contractor Kidnapped In Iraq – Wasn’t This Supposed To be Over?
I thought Saddam Hussein and the Sunni Muslims were the bad guys. And aren’t Nouri al Maliki and the Shiites the good guys? Oh, wait - I forgot about Muqtada al Sadr. Why can’t I keep this straight? American soldiers and Marines fought like Hell, shed their blood, and died to take down Saddam. So how is it that Shiites have kidnapped another American contractor, Issa Salomi (pictured above in a Shiite video out-take), and are holding him as leverage for the release of imprisoned anti-American Shiite warriors? How can there still be Shiite anti-American fighters in Iraq? I thought this kind of thing was finished. What’s going on here?
I’ll tell you what’s going on. American troops have pulled back and left it to the Iraqi security forces and the sectarian violence is re-igniting, just like Robert Spencer said it would. Car bombs are again detonating in Baghdad. An American has been kidnapped. The biggest falsehood perpetrated on the American people in this entire War is that the World of Islam can be civilized and democratized through our military intervention and cash. It is madness and total detachment from the realities of Islam. The Washington Post story is here:
“An American contractor working for the U.S. military in Baghdad has been kidnapped by a Shiite militant group, U.S. officials said this weekend in response to a statement and video issued by the group.
The abduction of contractor Issa T. Salomi, 60, of El Cajon, Calif., marks the first reported kidnapping of an American in Iraq since the summer of 2008.
The incident suggests that reconciliation talks between the Iraqi government and the League of the Righteous, a militant group that split from the movement led by fiery Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have broken down.
U.S. officials, who had high hopes for the reconciliation process, say they fear that the militant group, which has killed and kidnapped Americans and Britons, will continue to wage violence if it remains in the margins of the political system…”
Well, now, when political negotiations break down in American government there may be blustering press conferences, a filibuster, a debate, a vote or election - and the issue is decided. In the Muslim World political differences are often settled by means of shootings, kidnappings, bombings, heads being severed, limbs broken or lopped off, drilling holes into people with electrical tools, floggings, stonings, beatings, excised tongues, and other medieval methods which escape me at the moment – all in the name of Allah.
This new prisoners ransom is but one more piece of evidence that all we have after nearly seven years of war in Iraq is a Shiite Muslim State with Sharia (Muslim law) as the backbone of its Constitution. We are no closer to having in Iraq what Americans understand as Civilization than we were in 2003 before the invasion.
And a thousand years from now Islam will still be Islam, whether we stay in Iraq or come home. We’re not going to change fourteen-hundred years of history and belief. It’s time for American troops to leave Iraq and for someone who actually understands the tenets of Islam to figure another strategy for fighting the War.
In the meantime, we must hope and pray that Mr. Salomi is rescued and returned safely to his family.
I'm surprised to read about someone wanting us to pull out of Iraq here, that's egg on my face. To think I thought the writers here wanted to kill all Muslims regardless of location. Not that I believe we should just let terrorists continue to commit 9/11's and just turn the other cheek, but we should focus on countries directly responsible and make sure we have solid proof. Although, it is pretty strange most of those hijackers were Saudi's and we didn't attack them instead (besides OBL and his admitting to it).
Anyway, my apologese for assuming.
I'm just tired of war, tired of Americans dying, etc. Either nuke them all they way back to primordial times (we have tactical nukes now, right?) or build the best national defense system ever devised (make sure terrorists can't get on our planes or through our porous borders). Or, just kill them all en-mass. Sadly, these options are made out to be very political unsound. The only other option is to keep paying off these warlords, keep taking IED hits, and keep spending billions (if not trillions) of dollars, ad nauseum.
Didn't the Russians learn from this?
I'm not saying or suggesting that we stop fighting. I'm saying that our current strategy does not take into account the doctrines and tenets of Islam and their dynamics in this War.
Retired U.S. Army General Paul Vallely has a strategy for defending ourselves without getting immersed in trying to build Western Style Democracy in Muslim States. I think someone in the halls of power should listen to his advice. And a little serous reading of Hugh Fitzgerald's ideas on weakening the Camp of Islam by exploiting the schisms that have been there for centuries might get us some leverage, too.
Best,
JW
Newsflash, Iraq isn't utopia.
Of course not, because the infidel does not get to dictate to Muslims what Islam is. Nation building was a huge mistake.
Nobody can tell me what the US learned from Vietnam. Nobody even knows how many how many people were killed or for what.
Or rather, there was something learned from Vietnam – if you go into these places and hand out enough weapons you can trigger a mini holocaust while pretending it's nothing to do with you.
Meanwhile, the US is proud of kidnapping people and holding them for years (under threat of death) while beating them, water-boarding them and experimentally developing more sophisticated forms of torture. Good pupils these Shi'ites, eh?
William,
If you are suggesting that Shiite Muslims learned from the American Mliitary how to mistreat people, you've lost me. Perhaps some study of the History of Islam and the life of Muhammad would enlighten you. Pouring water on someone's face, while very uncomfortable for the person with the water in his nose, is not at all comparable to the mayhem that Sharia proscribes and administers in Muslim States every day.
And your suggestion that the U.S. Military started the Viet Nam War by handing out weapons is not rational and not true.
JW
Yeah I think Bill Smart is actually another slow learner!
John,
It's best to stick to specifics. Claiming that the problem here is "Islam" is about as useful as blaming colonialism in the Americas on "Christianity." It doesn't really fly. The real problem is not some broad ideology–it's the people who use that ideology for certain political goals. Islam exists in many forms all over the world, from the Middle East to Indonesia to Ghana to England to the US. It's NOT all the same, despite what certain pundits like to pretend. Your logic basically takes away blame on the very individuals who commit these actions by saying, in essence, that a religion made them do it. Shouldn't these people be held responsible? Aren't they accountable for their actions? If Islam is the REAL problem, then why are the vast majority of Muslims anything but terrorists? Islam takes many forms around the world–it's pretty important to separate the radical Muslims from the rest. This matters on several levels. It's important to make actual individuals responsible for what they do–instead of making blanket claims about Islam as a whole. Islam is an idea, and by no means does it automatically result in terrorism. Yes, there are Islamic terrorists, and they should be dealt with directly, no doubt about that. Just like any terrorist should be dealt with directly. No need to oversimplify reality and break the world down into simple categories that defy both historical and present realities.
Also, about Vietnam. Just for the record, that war was little more than a continuation of an anti-colonial struggle–against the French. The US became involved first by giving aid and weapons to the French, and then became fully involved when the French basically had their asses handed to them. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the Cold War sucked us in where we didn't belong. What we saw as another cold war front the Vietnamese saw as a struggle against colonialism. That's why it was such a disaster for the US–we were fighting people who had just kicked out a colonial power, and they sure as hell weren't going to lay down for another invading force. I still do not understand why people defend the Vietnam war as if was a just and reasonable foreign policy endeavor. It wasn't.
May I suggest that you actually do some research into the ideology of Islam. Read Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Bat Ye'or, Hugh Fitzgerald, Wafa Sultan. The highest calling of all Muslims is to wage violent jihad against non-believers and die in the act. It is a guaranteed ticket to Paradise. Muhammad's final instructions were to spread Islam until all in the world surrenders to it by 1) converting to Islam, 2) by living as dhimmis in second class status and paying taxes (jizyah) to their Muslim masters, or 3) being killed for refusing the first two options. It is not radical Islam. It is Islam. The first wave of jihad began after Muhammad's death in 632 A.D. and was stopped by Charles Martel at Tours/ Poitiers in 732 A.D. The second wave was stopped at the gates of Vienna, Austria on September 1, 1683. Now comes the 3rd wave. Islam. It is the abjectly stubborn refusal by people like yourself to examine and understand these doctrines, and their direct correlation to acts of terror, has put us into this terrible fix we are in. Until minds are opened our situation will only continue to deteriorate. JW
John,
"May I suggest that you actually do some research into the ideology of Islam. Read Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Bat Ye'or, Hugh Fitzgerald, Wafa Sultan. The highest calling of all Muslims is to wage violent jihad against non-believers and die in the act."
Maybe you should broaden your reading list and try to get outside of polemic pop history books. Also, pay attention to the sources that you are siting: Sultan claims to be writing specifically about RADICAL Islam, not Islam as a whole. Or is her book misleading?
There is a difference between the Islam of Saudi Arabia, for example, and the Islam of Indonesia and Ghana. History matters. It's important to pay close attention to the specifics, so you don't get lost in over generalizations.
"It is the abjectly stubborn refusal by people like yourself to examine, debate and understand these doctrines, and their direct correlation to acts of terror, that has put us into this terrible fix. Until minds are opened our situation will only continue to deteriorate."
Sure, people use religious doctrine to justify all sorts of things. But would you blame "Christianity" for the terrorism of the IRA? Was the IRA acting on ancient principles that date from the 1200s, or were they a terrorist organization that had specific histories and political particularities? In my opinion, you take thousands of years of history and condense it into a story that scares the shit out of people, but completely IGNORES the histories, politics, and specific details of the actual organizations under discussion.
Your version of history assumes that history since the 1600s has been pretty static, and that millions of different people all think and act the same because they share the same nominal religion–they don't. And I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept to think about.
Your understanding of Islam just turns humans into automatons who obey each and every thing that is written down or commanded of them. Your version of "history" makes it seem that all Muslims today adhere to 17th century principles to the tee. That's not the case–if you actually take the time to look at all of the Muslim populations around the world, it becomes pretty clear that the majority of them are NOT the extremists that you are talking about. So your version is a serious oversimplification of what is going on.
We need to look the SPECIFIC people who are doing these things, as opposed to running around flipping out about Islam as if it's a unified, monolithic force that impels people to act without thinking. Again, where is the individual responsibility? How can "Islam" be the problem when there are millions of Muslims around the world who ARE NOT terrorists? That seems to complicate your theory. I would argue that the ultimate problem is people like Bin Laden and others who use religion to further their political agendas.
John,
"May I suggest that you actually do some research into the ideology of Islam. Read Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Bat Ye'or, Hugh Fitzgerald, Wafa Sultan. The highest calling of all Muslims is to wage violent jihad against non-believers and die in the act."
May I suggest that you broaden your reading list outside of the likes of Spencer. Also, notice that Sultan is talking specifically about RADICAL Islam–that's an important point.
"It is the abjectly stubborn refusal by people like yourself to examine, debate and understand these doctrines, and their direct correlation to acts of terror, that has put us into this terrible fix. Until minds are opened our situation will only continue to deteriorate."
How am I stubborn? Because I disagree with you? How do you know what I am willing to "examine, debate, and understand"? Do me a favor and drop the assumptions.
Your version of history is incredibly oversimplified. You completely ignore the fact there is not just one Islam, and that not all Muslims, by any means, are terrorists. By your logic, should be blame "Christianity" for the terrorism of the IRA? Hardly. The IRA, while composed of many Christians, was an organization with specific histories and politics.
Your version of history assumes that all Muslims are somehow like-thinking and all act the same. You also assume that history and doctrine dictates the actions of all Muslims, as if they are all automatons. The only problem with your theory is that it's all in your head (and in Spencer's and maybe Ann Coulter's). All Muslims around the world DO NOT act and think the same, and Islam takes some very different forms.
Therefore, the problem is not Islam per so (since that's an ideology that can be used toward various ends) but what SPECIFIC people and groups do in the name of Islam. Yes, there are terrorist organizations, and yes, they need to be dealt with. No doubt about that. But there is no need to simply assume that since SOME Muslims commit terrorism therefore Islam is all about terrorism. They don't. And you have empirical reality to back that up. If you're not blinded by your own ideology, then you'll take the time to read a little more and realize that history isn't always as neat and self-serving as writers like Spencer make it appear.
All Muslims do not act in the same way. I never asserted that. Please do not put words into my hand that I did not write. Most Muslims live peaceful lives and do not answer the call to violent jihad, which you still have not acknowedged is a codified, documented tenet of Islam. Is violent jihad an accepted doctrine of Islam or is it not? I can see you have an issue specifically with Robert Spencer. You brought his name up two times. That must be a very sore spot. Fine. Let's set Spencer aside for a moment. How about Brigitte Gabriel, Diana West, Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Gregory Davidson, John Esposito, Walid Shoebat, Reza Aslan, Edward Said, Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams. Does that broaden the horizon a bit? In twenty years of American police work, I did grasp the idea of following the evidence. I'm following the evidence. The doctrine says what it says, despite what apologists may say to try to obfuscate it. Perhaps it is you who is blinded by your ideology?
John,
"All Muslims do not act in the same way. I never asserted that. Please do not put words into my hand that I did not write. Most Muslims live peaceful lives and do not answer the call to violent jihad…"
Good, I am glad to see that you recognize this point.
"…you still have not acknowedged is a codified, documented tenet of Islam."
I completely understand this fact. But you seem stuck on the idea that this somehow means that people have no choice, and that they automatically impelled to followed 1400 year old ideologies. Your version completely dispels any notion of actual responsibility, and seems to argue that these terrorists are merely products of history. My argument is that you have to pay closer attention to what is going on–you can't just lump all of Islam into one coherent historical narrative because it makes for good storytelling. There is a lot more to it. The issues that we are seeing in the ME have their own specific histories, and many of the current issues have a lot more to do with recent histories (19th and 20th century) than they do the 1600s.
Also, plenty of ancient ideologies and religions have aspects that can be used to justify violence. Humanity as a whole has been plagued by violence. People manipulate these sorts of things all the time. History makes that pretty clear. Have you ever read some of the ways in which the Spanish justified what they were doing in the Americas? Was that the fault of Christian doctrine or the Spanish conquistadors?
Clearly there are violent extremists who use Islamic tenets to justify violence. But there is no need to start drawing upon 7th century religious doctrine to explain all of this. That certainly IS NOT the only determining factor. We should probably pay attention to all of the wars that have ravaged the region, to the corrupt military leaders, to colonial histories, etc. The terrorism that we are seeing today cannot simply be boiled down to the tenets of Islam, despite the fact that fools like Bin Laden use those tenets as part of their propaganda all the time.
"I can see you have an issue specifically with Robert Spencer. You brought his name up two times. That must be a very sore spot. Fine."
Again, you're long on assumptions. I could care less about Spencer–he is just another polemic who I put in the same camp as Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. Polemic pop history that glosses over the details in favor of shockers that sell. Big deal. There is more to history and international politics than the comic book versions that these people pump out.
"How about Brigitte Gabriel, Diana West, Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Gregory Davidson, John Esposito, Walid Shoebat, Reza Aslan, Edward Said, Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams."
Well, that covers a lot more of the spectrum. But I would put Pipes in the same reactionary camp as Michael Moore. That's just me though.
"In twenty years of American police work, I did grasp the idea of following the evidence. I'm following the evidence. The doctrine says what it says, despite what apologists may say to try to obfuscate it."
Great, but the evidence is more than just 7th century doctrine. There are many different trajectories of what Islam "really means" and we can't just connect the dots where we see fit because it fits a particularly appealing version of the story.
Can we find the roots of contemporary US in ancient Greece and ancient Judeo-Christian ideology? Yes, to an extent. But to argue that the actions of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were determined by those ancient philosophies is to ignore a massive amount of more recent historical events, decisions, and contexts.
Claiming that we can understand the actions of AQ by only looking at the ancient tenets of Islam is to ignore a massive amount of historical and political data…and it also somewhat takes the blame away from people like Al Sadr and Bin Laden. Is your argument, ultimately, that they did what they did because some old book told them to? The problem is the fact that Bin Laden actively chose to manipulate people and ideology to fit his violent agenda–that's the problem.
"And as to your allusion to the IRA, it is an organization based in Marxist ideology, not Christianity."
That's a pretty nice reading of the IRA–they were composed of Christians, and the violence was very much about religions (and political differences).
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
This scripture relates Jesus' narration of a parable about a nobleman who gave each of his servants ten pounds, then demanded an accounting of how each spent the money. It is the nobleman in the parable that speaks the words about killing them who would not serve him. Jesus never commanded anyone to kill non-believers. Muhammad did, and killed them himself.
You've completely misrepresented the words in this scripture and the context in which they were spoken. I refuse to debate any more. I'm wasting my time.
Best wishes,
JW
one more…
"This scripture relates Jesus' narration of a parable about a nobleman who gave each of his servants ten pounds, then demanded an accounting of how each spent the money. It is the nobleman in the parable that speaks the words about killing them who would not serve him. Jesus never commanded anyone to kill non-believers. Muhammad did, and killed them himself."
Ya, I know where it comes from. That's why I used this one–this is one example of how people use an out of context quote to try to prove something about these types of doctrines. It's easy to clear up with a little more context. This is one of the most common passages that is taken out of context to mean that violence against non-believers was advocated. Read what I wrote above before you jump the gun.
"You've completely misrepresented the words in this scripture and the context in which they were spoken. I refuse to debate any more. I'm wasting my time."
You didn't read what I wrote. I pulled that quote PRECISELY because it's one that people use all the time to try to claim that Jesus called for violence against non-believers. But the actual context reveals otherwise. It's pretty cut and dry, and was meant to illustrate that a lot of this has to do with interpretation and what people do with it. But you missed that point.
"The Koran is not just "some old book" and you know it."
It matters how these things are interpreted. Books do not force people to do anything. People either decide to act or they are convinced to act by others.
Your argument completely dispels any notion of actual responsibility by pretending that the source of all of this is not the political and military leaders who call for violence, but the old texts and doctrines that they use to rationalize it. I vote for avoiding the generalizations about the powers of old doctrines and for holding specific contemporary individuals and organizations accountable.
You have already acknowledged the fact that most Muslims are NOT violent extremists, which kind of shoots your basic thesis down right there. The problem is clearly not Islam, but those who use it for violence. My point: clearly adherence to Islam does not automatically result in violence (as millions of followers empirically demonstrate). So there must be something else that we should look into.
But you're not getting that for some reason.
one more…
"Where in codified Christian doctrine is violence against non-believers mandated? I would be very interested to read that."
Now you want to play interpretive ping-pong? I think that starts to miss the whole point–much of this comes down to some very ancient doctrines and how different people interpret them and put them to use. In the Bible, people try to use this quote as one example of what you are talking about:
Luke 19:27
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
That SEEMS to argue that non-believers should be killed…but this passage is interpreted in many different ways by Christians. But there it is, in the text. By your logic, this should be damning evidence…in mine it matters more what people make of this and how they decide to act in accordance. The same goes for Islam. It's not about just quote-farming and finding evil passages in Islamic doctrine…IMO it's more important to pay attention to the people and organizations who actually advocate and commit violence.
It would be nice if people quit acting surprised when the soldiers of Islam kidnap yet another American. Next some idiot will infer that Americans deserve it for being there or that we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place. Here is a news flash. The borders of the mideast states are no deterrent to Islamic oppression. To think that just a few guys sitting in a cave orchestrated the largest mass murder on US soil without any external support from neighbouring idealogues is naive at best. Jihad and the ideology of Islamic hate against non-Muslims transcends borders. Being in Iraq as distasteful as it may be for the uninformed more than likely saved American lives. By consolidating the position of the Jihad Forces in Iraq it is my opinion that this decreased the available personnel and logistical ability of the enemy to facilitate more attacks here in the US and in Western Europe.
As for this poor contractor, Mr. Salomi, I fear the media will try and regurgitate Abu Ghraib and try and facilitate sympathy for the Islamic criminals who took him. After the Daniel Pearl or Nick Berg tragedies I believed that the world would see the evil that America is facing. In June of 2006, two American Marines were kidnapped, tortured, and murdered down around Diwaniyah. The BBC and the major networks reported the story briefly, omitting of course the extent of the brutality perpetrated on our soldiers. It is curious that their is no fair and balanced reporting on what happens to our soldier when they are captured. If there is chance for the media to paint an awful picture of Americans they bend over backwards to do it. But when Islamics decapitate, mutilate and destroy the bodies of US soldiers and contractors it is on page 25.
I have seen the US soldiers in Iraq. They are great warriors of course, but what impresses the most is their humanity. They are dying, literally, to give the Iraqis a chance at a better life. The media neglects this as well. Instead choosing to focus on isolated incidents by a few nut jobs and then incorrectly holding up those nut jobs as an example of the whole military or intelligence community. If the media reported all the atrocities committed in the name of Allah against US service men and women the way it covered Abu Grhaib, the US military would have crushed the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the world would be lining up to say thanks.
Viking,
Thank you for reading and for commenting. Yes, unfortunately most of the vaunted American Press Corps leans far to the left, holding hands with the World of Islam. So, no, we do not get pictures and stories of Muslim atrocities. The beheadings of Pearl, Armstrong, Berg et al are long forgotten.
But there are sites like this one, where we have not forgotten.
Best wishes,
JW
How did you delete my comment before I even published it?
Don't mind this…I think there was some glitch or something–the site said my comment was deleted right when I hit the submit button. Weird.
We have an oversensitive spam-filter sometimes. Akismet is a double-edged sword. We also have a blacklist of profanities and hateful terms.
But there are ghosts in the system that like to gobble up perfectly good comments sometimes.
If your comment doesn't show up and you don't know why then contact us about it. It's more likely than not a glitch.
Okay, R.A. Fair enough. I did read what you wrote, very carefully. You have your opinions and your evidentiary reasons for holding them. I shall respect that.
I have mine, along with evidentiary reasons for holding them. I sincerely thank you for the debate and wish you well. And I also thank you for exercising your right to free speech by commenting here.
Time will tell us more about where all this is going, will it not?
JW
Thanks to you too. Sorry for the confusion–that's why I usually try to avoid the interpretive stuff (although that one is, as you pointed out, quite clear). Anyway, it wasn't meant to be upsetting or offensive by any means, just to talk about the difficulties that this subject starts to get into.
I think the answers lie somewhere between the over-generalizations of the more conservative writers and the overly relativistic ideas of the more liberal folks. Ultimately we all take our sides I suppose…but I still try to argue for the middle ground one way or another.
"Time will tell us more about where all this is going, will it not? "
Ya, that's the hard part. All of these opinions and ideas are all well and good, but the only true test is time. Good point!
Seeya.