Diana West for Secretary of Foreign Policy - ASAP

Here's the plan. It makes common sense and therefore is suspect because it would not need thousands of dollars spent on "over-the-hill-gang" Blue-haired, er; Blue-bloodied, er; "Blue Ribbon Commissions". Ms. West's column reminds me of my recent post, Iraq-tossed our like the carcass of a carved-up Christmas turkey?. [Thank you to the Baron at the Gates of Vienna for teaching me how to enter links. Now if I could get someone to teach me how to do the "read further..." code text for my template - I'd be swimmin....] And one more post along the same lines, Iraq Study Group - Winner of Best Naming Award which includes a "must read" op-ed piece by Frank Gaffney, Jr, Poisoned Fruits. Before Diana's op-ed, let me also recommend Felix at Taking Sides and Win the War "over there" by deporting radical islamists from "here". Let's get right to salient statements in Ms. West's op-ed piece Let the Muslims fight it out: Let the Muslims fight it out By Diana West December 15, 2006

Funny thing about the recent op-ed by Nawaf Obaid in The Washington Post outlining likely Saudi actions if the United States withdraws from Iraq: namely, that Saudis would both support Sunnis in Iraq (versus Shi'ites supported by Iran) and manipulate the oil market to "strangle" the Iranian economy. I think it sounds peachy, this let-them-devour-each-other strategy — which I'm guessing many Americans mutter to one another in frankness, if not also in confidence. After the column appeared, not only did the Saudi government disavow it, but Mr. Obaid was fired from his job advising the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal. Hmmm, thought Saudi-ologists. Before anyone could say, "shifting desert sands," Mr. Turki resigned his post in Washington, hightailing it back to the so-called kingdom.... Hmmm again. But now it seems the Obaid column "reflected the view of the Saudi government," after all... "private" Saudi money is already supporting Sunni forces in Iraq. ... "if Iraq's sectarian violence worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders" — al Qaeda or no al Qaeda. Meanwhile, we already know Iran is backing, if not guiding, Iraqi Shi'ites. So what should we do? I propose two options, neither of which has occurred to Iraq Study Groupies calling for peace parleys with Hezbollah boosters and Holocaust deniers, or to hawkish proponents of "winning" Iraq (or at least Baghdad) with more troops. But maybe that's because neither group dares to reckon with the two greatest obstacles to our efforts in the region: namely, Islam (culturally unsuited to Westernity) and our own politically correct ROE, or rules of engagement (strategically unsuited to victory). The first option is military,...the fact is, the United States has an arsenal that could obliterate any jihad threat in the region once and for all, whether that threat is bands of IED-exploding "insurgents" in Ramadi, the deadly so-called Mahdi Army in Sadr City, or genocidal maniacs in Tehran. In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations. As a culture, however, the West is paralyzed by the specter of civilian casualties,... So, the military solution — which isn't the same as boosting ROE-cuffed troop levels in Baghdad — is out, unless or until our desperation level rises to some unsupportably manic level. The great paradox of the "war on terror," of course, is that as our capacity and desire to protect civilians in warfare grows, our enemy's capacity and desire to kill civilians as a means of warfare grows also. Our fathers saved us from having to say, "Sieg Heil," but what's next — "Allahu akbar"? Not necessarily. There's another Middle Eastern strategy to deter expansionist Islam: Get out of the way. Get out of the way of Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other. As a sectarian conflict more than 1,000 years old, this is not only one fight we didn't start, but it's one we can't end. And why should we? If Iran, the jihad-supporting leader of the Shi'ite world, is being "strangled" by Saudi Arabia, the jihad-supporting leader of the Sunni world, isn't that good for the Sunni-and-Shiite-terrorized West? With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it — to plan for the next round.

This lady is my kind of writer and strategist. Get cracking, President George W. Get this woman involved and give her some authority. For my part, I suggest moving our troops to out-lying FOBs, shore these up, and wait for the dust to settle on the sectarian war waging within Iraq. Well, not all of Iraq - the Kurds seem to be doing fine. Make sure Maliki gets Saddam executed, then step back and be there to help the Saudis put Iraq back together again. Key though is getting Saddam OUT of the picture, as in "can't come back into power ever." Ms. West's plan is too clear, too honest, and too simple. I would add to it a few alterations in implementation. I would keep our troops in Iraq and strengthen our bases there but for all intents and purposes refrain from engaging in the sectarian violence. Let the two warring factions of Islam duke it out. We need to have troops and bases there, in the region, so that we can work with the group that wins. If it is the Sunnis supported by Saudi Arabia now more openly, we already rather laughably count the Saudis as "friends";

• we are certainly allowing thousands of their citizens to come to America for extraordinarily fine education;
• we are allowing the Saudis to build anti-American, hate-filled Wahabbi Schools across the United States;
• we are stupidly allowing imams to recruit "terrorists" right in our prisons; and
• we are allowing Saudis to fund the building of mosques as well as the establishment of pseudo-legislation-driven tax-free organizations set on changing our laws, turning us over to Sharia Law [maybe a reciprocity agreement here would be fruitful - for every mosque in US, we build one Christian Church or Jewish synagogue in Saudi];
• we are allowing the Saudis to gain controlling influence in our MSM or old media outlets; and
• in that way among others, we are allowing Saudi Arabia to influence our elections; and finally,
• we are allowing Saudi money to influence and control what is put in our children's text books.

Our government either from design or from simple-mindedness is turning the United States over to the Islamists in their goal for an Islamic Caliphate. Scoff if you will, but I'm correct in this. My proposal is thus: 1) Diana West for Secretary of Foreign Policy with authority to act and implement her plans without interference, and 2) Conservative Beach Girl for her Deputy Secretary of Foreign Policy so that not one more Muslim will be allowed into the United States unless and until Islam goes through a "reformation" which we find compatible with our principles of democratic republicanism in accordance with our Constitution. All student-visas held by Middle Eastern students would be revoked and all hatred-for-American teaching imams would get one-way tickets to Saudi. They could get back to their place of origin from there. And, so sorry, no more immigration legal or illegal of Muslims into the United States of America until all this stuff about killing the "infidel" gets sorted out and deleted from the Qur'an. The United States of America is a land of freedom and liberties. Our constitution is not a suicide pack and it is suicide to allow any folks into one's nation who through their "holy book" seek the destruction of our nation, of our way of life, and of our Western Civilization. I would remind the purveyors of "hate speech" laws that there is a vast difference between "hate speech" and exercising of our freedom of speech in defense of one's nation from being overthrown - from within or without. That last brings me to a statement I heard Mel Gibson say in his interview with Sean Hannity. Mr. Gibson said something close to this: "No great nation has ever been destroyed from without until it has destroyed itself from within."