In a post at the excellent Power Line, the West's fundamental inability (or unwillingness) to publicly admit and address the fact that the will of Allah and his false prophet--as revealed in Qur'an and Sunnah--inspires and sustains the global jihad against us (and all other non-Muslims) raises its ugly, decapitated head. Paul writes:
In my view, Iraqi participation in elections, sometimes at great personal risk, goes a long way towards answering those who say there's something in the Iraqi (or Arab) DNA that is incompatible with the administration's democracy project. Unfortunately, though, more was required of the Iraqi peoople than just voting. The situation called on them to elect leaders who would work in good faith for national reconciliation, rather than tilting substantially in the direction of one sectarian faction. The Iraqis failed to do this when they voted in the Shia-militia-friendly Malacki government, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to work with the current government to curb sectarian violence.This analysis--as too that of the President and his administration, Old Media, and just about every other Infidel too unaware (how can one be unaware now over five years out from 9/11?) or too timid to admit it--fails to account for the role of Islam. It looks at the Global Jihad through the prism of its own belief system (or lack of one) and expects observant Muslims to think, vote, and act as Westerners would. This is naive and foolish, for the Religion of Peace is the defining factor in all calculations involving the Muslim world and our Global War of Self-Defense Against Allah, and it is diametrically opposed to the values and beliefs foundational to Western Civilization.
The Iraqis, of course, are not the first people to make a very bad decision at the polls. The fact that they did so is not necessarily evidence of some national 'genetic' flaw, much less a demonstration that democracy can't work in the Middle East. It just means that the Iraqi people did less than what a difficult situation required, and that we must face up to and deal with the consequences.
(A sad irony perpetuated by those who deny that we are engaged in a "clash of civilizations" is that Islam is fully exploiting to Allah's advantage the West's political, religious, legal, and moral weaknesses, but we do nothing to resist its advance. The West could utterly devastate any portion of the Ummah it wishes (in whole or in part), but jihadists, their sympathetic co-religionists, and their Useful Idiots in the West have intimidated and deceived us so thoroughly that one cannot even question Islam. So craven are we that our own politicians not only defend or deny in the public discourse the tyranny of Allah, they introduce legislation to impose it upon us.)
The fundamental issue on which American success in Iraq has always hinged is to what degree the Iraqi people embrace the will of Allah. The more devout, faithful, and religious its people, the less likely will it be that Iraq will achieve true Liberty and equality of rights for all its citizens (including religious minorities and women), and the greater the likelihood that its people will continue to contribute to jihad against us.
In effect, America and its friends are making our success in Iraq dependent upon the apostasy of its Muslims.
Jihad in Iraq is not the result of innate, unavoidable genetic factors, nor is it due to matters of nationalism. It is due to the belief system of too significant a percentage of the Muslim people: Islam.
Democracy means that the people vote for the government they desire. Iraqis voted for a tall glass of Shari'ah with a Shia twist (that's why fourteen year-old Christian boys are being beheaded at work). Clearly, democracy is working in Iraq, just not the way Infidels would prefer it.
How can we expect the Iraqi people vote for leaders who will work "in good faith" toward "reconciliation," when the nation is nearly entirely Muslim (non-Muslims are suffering more and more since Saddam was removed), and its people are divided along the ancient, historical, and religious lines of Shia versus Sunni? War, persecution, and humiliation is what they do to each other.
Neither can one be surprised when a nation that is majority-Shia vote for...a Shia! And since Allah and his apostle require that every able-bodied Muslim engage in jihad against the Infidel and Apostate to make the world Islam, it should not come as a shock that these Shia would be militia-friendly.
Iraq's decision at the polls is only "very bad" if you are non-Muslim or Sunni. For those who voted, they got what they wanted (or at least a step closer toward it, perhaps the establishment of an Iran/Shia-based caliphate).
Neither did the Iraqis "do less than what a difficult situation required," they did what the law allowed and their ideology demanded. They used the Western imposition of the democratic process to advance the establishment of Shari'ah, the rule of Islam.
Now the West must "face up to and deal with the consequences" of our failure to understand and address the source and sustenance of Muslim terrorism: the will of Allah and his messenger. It is they who require the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.