The long view of history makes the 'occupations' of both Iraq and Afcrapistan necessary. No one much likes this fact. The left-wing peace-at-all-costs fanatics declaim against any use of Western military power. They are also silent or joyful when Western assets and people are liquidated. Too many political and media bores slobber on about how wonderful the moon-cult from Mecca truly is. They are part of the problem, not part of the answer. Even many so-called right-wing fanatics – whatever right wing means – are against the wars deeming them too expensive in men and treasure and serving little point but to inflame Arab and Muslim opinion – as if Islam did not initiate modern Islamic fascism and terror and did not deserve a military response. It is painful to listen to such barren, mindless chatter.

No, the real reasons for waging war against Islamic regimes, is to begin the long process, one which will take generations and perhaps centuries, to separate the long-suffering and enslaved people of the Arab and Islamic world, from Islamic theology. By doing this we will protect ourselves and our necessary access to oil and other resources that we discovered and which we need. This separation of Islamic church from the secular state must occur, if we are to limit and eventually neuter Muslim terror, jihad and violence. One of the mainsprings of Islamic jihad and fascism, is of course the melding of church and state and the creation of entities which can use not only their enslaved human power, but the economic and taxable resources of a political entity. Along with foreign war and occupations we need to limit Islamic immigration and shut down immoderate, Jihad inspiring mosques which populate every single major Western urban center.  Domestic realism combined with military projection into the heart of festering, corroded, rotted Islam.

The long war against Islam cannot be avoided. Either you fight it or perish. If you can't name your enemy you will never win the conflict. Iraq is a case in point. The West left Iraq – three times in fact – and we paid a heavy price by allowing an Arab fascism to develop and fester, one which sponsored terror, started 3 regional wars and directly threatened Israel's existence. By leaving Iraq to its own devices, we sowed the seeds for a future military conflict. As outlined previously:

“..Great Britain tried twice to bring strong central government to Iraq, and both times it failed. In the 1920's the British army occupied the country; when that became too costly, the British withdrew, leaving behind a constitution that empowered King Faisal. When Faisal died and his son could not manage affairs, the country splintered along ethnic lines. Civil war erupted, with military officers emerging as heroes. By the 1930's, the army controlled politics. At the beginning of World War II the British Army once again occupied Iraq, in order to prevent Baghdad from forming an alliance with Hitler that would have jeopardized access to Iraqi oil. ....As soon as its troops departed, the Iraqi army took power and initiated a reign that did not end until the American invasion of 2003.

Here is the important lesson. Scholars at the RAND corporation have studied America's efforts at nation-building in the last half-century, ranging from successes [Germany and Japan] to failures [Haiti and Somalia, both of which were hampered by UN control] and to all the uncertain outcomes in-between [Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, all of which have UN involvement]. One of the most important things we should have learned, they conclude, is that "while staying long does not guarantee success, leaving early ensures failure." In order for freedom to have a chance of developing in Iraq, or in Afghanistan we must be patient as well as strong. It would be an unmitigated disaster to leave too early. Our Iraqi supporters would be crushed, terrorists and Islamic radicals would have won, and our own struggle and sacrifices would have been for naught.”

The US should have invaded Iraq in 1991 of course – but left southern Iraq for reasons which made little sense in the view of geo-politics or geo-economics. The inevitable war was simply delayed 12 years and resulted in more lives lost; and more money invested; than a 1991 takeover of Baghdad would have cost.

Iraq is the best geographical expression imaginable to begin the remodeling of the Arab and Muslim world.  This argument was forwarded previously:

“First, Iraq is the starting point to roll back Islamic terror. ... Iraq is the greatest geopolitical asset the West can control. By controlling Iraq you have leverage over Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. You ensure that oil flows through the straits of Hormuz. Combined with the Afghani occupation we have future bases to launch further strikes into the Islamic heart of darkness.

Second, Iraq was an unstable, terror funding regime, which started 2 regional wars in part to control oil and clear its national debts. Al Qaeda groups including Al Ansar were in Iraq during the 1990s. Funding of Palestinian suicide bombers was a national policy. Terror regimes have to be brought down. Iraq which broke the 1991 cease fire agreement was the first in line to disappear.

Third, in the long view of history, ‘realism’ has proven itself ineffective. Realism works when it is combined with a clear vision and with processes that we control. Without controlling key processes, realism descends into chaos and reactionary policy. Former US ‘realpolitick’ in the region meant that any corrupt bastard who was our enemy’s enemy was our friend. This is morbidly inappropriate. We need to understand that the marriage between idealism and power is the only way to structure the Middle East in the long term view of history.”

Picking a local Fascist as your friend and enabling him to fight you spatially defined 'enemy' is not good policy. The US and the West need to split Islamic theology from the life of the secular state. If we don't do this, we will witness a rising tide of immoderate, fascistic Arab and Islamic terror and jihad. Why ? Because such attributes and violence are the natural expressions of Koranic intolerance and Muslim theology. 1400 years of Islamic imperialism make this obvious.

Islam is our enemy. This is not to state that Muslim individuals are the enemy. Muslims might indeed be moderate law abiding lovers of peace and inter-faith harmony, not to mention owners of small dogs and volunteers at the local charity. But this is immaterial. The ideology of the cult is the key to Islam. The strict nature of Koranic and Sharia law are the material factors in Muslim culture. No one can make the argument that Islamic theology is compatible with Western ideals. It simply isn't. When cultures collide you can try to reason your way into a dialogue of mutual tolerance and habitation. But when that fails you have only two options left; 1. To appease and eventually surrender or 2. Accept that you come from a superior culture and civilization and fight.

I would assume that most Westerners, when properly informed and given the true options, would prefer option number two.