Obama's Iraq Pledge Sets The Stage

The Nation: Candidate's Plan To End War In 2009 Will Loom Large In General Election

(The Nation)  This column was written by Tom Hayden.

---

In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation.

Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisers he would leave behind.

Ending the war in the first year of his potential presidency, therefore, is the strongest stand Obama has taken thus far, and one he will be questioned on sharply by the Republicans and the media. As Juan Cole noted last year, the Bush-Cheney team is preparing a "poison pill" of disorder and blame for any future President contemplating an Iraq troop withdrawal.

Did Obama mean it? Was it only rhetoric? Perhaps, but as Obama has said over and over lately, words make a difference. He may be asked to square his 2009 goal with his previous eighteen-month timetable. To avoid inconsistencies or missteps, he might claim that he will publicly declare in 2009 that he is ending the occupation but bringing the troops home on his longer timetable. Who knows? But these were words worth holding the candidate to. The astonishing thing is that antiwar sentiment among Obama's base is running strongly enough to push the candidate forward to a stronger commitment. By comparison, in "The Audacity of Hope" (2006), Obama wrote that "how quickly a complete withdrawal can be accomplished is a matter of imperfect judgment based on a series of best guesses."

The Iraq war, and the so-called war on terrorism, are now guaranteed to loom large in the likely battle between Obama and John McCain. The American experience, first with Vietnam and now with Iraq, provides a strong reservoir of support for Obama's skeptical position from 2002 until the present time. But McCain's personal experience as a tough Navy pilot and prisoner of war makes him much more formidable than Hillary Clinton as a "national security" advocate against Obama. McCain's remarks Tuesday were focused entirely on Obama's lack of experience in foreign affairs, and should be a wake-up call to the peace movement to become more engaged in the presidential election.

Obama faces two immediate tests aside from the primary contests ahead. First, sometime in April, General David Petraeus will be testifying in Washington that the conditions are improving in Iraq and that the United States must "stay the course." Petraeus will be acting as a de facto surrogate for McCain in domestic politics. Obama will have to respond to the general's serious claims without retreating from the commitment he has given to early withdrawal.

Second, the questions of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan could intensify as a symbol of America's current policies towards terrorism. McCain has already absorbed both neoconservative doctrines and the neoconservatives themselves in his campaign against "Islamo-fascism" as the greatest threat in American history.

First, the neoconservatives will push for Obama's (and the Democrats') acceptance of their terminology to control the debate, or berate their opponents as weak for not recognizing "Islamo-fascism" as the new equivalent of the Communist threat during the cold war.

Next, they will attack Obama for proposing to pull the plug on Iraq just when the tide is turning.

Finally, they will question Obama's experience in pushing for diplomacy towards Iran, and draw him out on why he favors more troops in Afghanistan and a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan if there is "actionable intelligence." They will probe, too, into Obama's commitment to Israel.

It will be messy and ugly, with right-wingnuts calling Obama by his middle name as often as possible.

Weeks before Obama became the front-runner, The New York Times hired William Kristol as another in-house neoconservative, as Kristol was blasting the Democratic Party for becoming "the puppet of the antiwar groups." The Times's own "objective" news commentary adopted the right-wing frame that the Democrats would "seem unpatriotic" by cutting funds for American troops while "under intense pressure from the antiwar faction [read: majority] of their party." Wedge politics virtually dictates that splintering the Obama campaign, the Democrats and the antiwar movement, while uniting the right and center around "experience," will be the strategic agenda for Republicans through November. If he is not the vice-presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman will be employed as the primary ally of the Republicans in trying to make inroads into the American Jewish community as well.

But there are Republican weaknesses to expose too, beginning with their attempt to perpetuate an endless trillion-dollar war in Iraq. MoveOn and others will strike hard at that Republican vulnerability. According to counterinsurgency doctrine, the current Iraq war is expected to last throughout the next presidential term, longer than most Americans can imagine supporting it. On Iran, the recent National Intelligence Estimate has dampened any White House plans for an American strike, though the Israelis may act as a dangerous surrogate before December.

Then there is the quagmire of Afghanistan, where no military solution is in sight. And finally, in Pakistan, $11 billion invested in the Musharraf regime was swept away by the voters yesterday. The Pakistanis do not want to be pawns in the American war on terrorism. They know that a military fight with the Taliban or Al Qaeda is also a bottomless battle against Pashtun nationalism with implications for Pakistan's stability as a whole.

The danger for Obama lies in being challenged by McCain, the neoconservatives and the right-wing conservatives to prove his credentials as a militarist or face being painted as another Democrat too weak to be Commander-in-Chief.

The opportunity for the peace movement is to engage in open political and intellectual battle, from precincts to public forums, against the neoconservative agenda for a permanent war against Muslim radicals and on behalf of American access to oil with dire consequences at home.

[Syndicate]

Obama should just tell the truth. It goes like this "I''m going to dam 20 million Iraqis to hell. If you will vote for me."

[noloyalisti]

I hope he is telling the truth. Since we only have the visage of democracy to make people think they have a say in the government, it is hard to be sure. We have nothing to win in Iraq. Their people know that this invasion was for their oil and no amount of US military action will work for that. So basically we are just throwing away $200 billion or so away every year in the failed occupation.

I do know that Obama will represent change and that can only be good after the GOP sponsored destruction of the government and America.

[Syndicate]

"The danger for Obama lies in being challenged by McCain, the neoconservatives and the right-wing conservatives to prove his credentials as a militarist or face being painted as another Democrat too weak to be Commander-in-Chief."

This is me. Show you can protect the country and keep my family safe or step aside.

[noloyalisti]

Who is he keeping the country safe from? Bush and the GOP advisors were the ones who let the terrorists into the US for their political gain.

I want someone who won''t make up straw men to scare us. I want him to protect my family from the terrorists within. The corporate controlled terrorists who are stealing our rights and money and running terrorist wars in the Asia and the Middle East.

[Razzl]

The only way we ever get to leave Iraq is to stop agonizing over what we can''t control, declare victory, and begin withdrawal. The Iraqis are not going to get serious about running their own affairs until the troops and money begin to visibly dry up. Cutting losses is the only "win" we will ever have there, there''s no point in delaying withdrawal...

[mbcsmith]

Obama hasn''t got a clue how to protect this country. Now is not the time for a novice with no credentials.

[it_oldtimer]

The powers-that-be have a vested interest in keeping us all perpetually in fear of something or other. It provides them with job security and power-grabbing (as well as money-making) opportunities.

Fear - whether it''s justified or not - makes ordinary citizens so much more malleable and easy to manipulate.

The First Rule of Politics: "Always keep your electorate afraid of something, even if you have to manufacture something - then guarantee them that you, and you alone, can save them from that which they now fear."

That doesn''t change the fact that statistically you''re far more likely to be hit by lightning twice in the same day as be involved in any kind of a "terrorist" attack in your lifetime.

Americans are such suckers. Terrorism is just the latest boogeyman of political convenience, since the Cold War fizzled out, and it''s been vastly overblown for purely political gain by both sides.

I certainly never lose so much as a minute''s worth of sleep worrying about it.

[heartlight3]

Why is the assumption that Obama will just withdraw the troops without negotiating some sort of diplomatic truce or cease fire? Judging by what I''ve seen of his intelligence and organizational ability, I wouldn''t be surprised if he was able to use some combination of withdrawal and diplomacy to extricate us from this with honor. Obviously the bull in the china shop military option hasn''t produced what we were told it would produce.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how Iraq has anything to do with our security.
1. They were not at involved in 9/11. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were more involved.
2. There was no WMD - that was just a perception nutured by the liars and cowards in our executive branch of government.
3. The future?? They''re gonna be more involved in settling old internal scores, they seem to be intractibly obesessed with that, possibly a civil war.
4. Withdrawal with honor??? That''s already history. The only "honor" involved now is the vanity of those liars and cowards who lied us into this in the first place. The military has already done it''s job. They got rid of Saddam. Anything after that - if we''re to be honest - is the failure of the politicians... abysmal failure - I might add.
5. Fighting terror on its turf and not ours? Wouldn''t that be Pakistan/Afghanistan?

When we discard all of the perception engineering/manipulation...what do we have left??

[random_radar]

Obama says he will end the war in 2009.

McCain says he will stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary (that''s 2109).

2009 or 2109? Tough choice.

I still will vote for Ron Paul as a matter of principle, but Obama looks pretty smart if you ask me.

[jwind11]

Obama says he will end the war in 2009.

McCain says he will stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary (that''''s 2109).

2009 or 2109? Tough choice.

I still will vote for Ron Paul as a matter of principle, but Obama looks pretty smart if you ask me.

Posted by random_radar

mccain will keep us in iraq for 100 years?

[jwind11]

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how Iraq has anything to do with our security.
1. They were not at involved in 9/11. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were more involved.
2. There was no WMD - that was just a perception nutured by the liars and cowards in our executive branch of government.
3. The future?? They''''re gonna be more involved in settling old internal scores, they seem to be intractibly obesessed with that, possibly a civil war.
4. Withdrawal with honor??? That''''s already history. The only "honor" involved now is the vanity of those liars and cowards who lied us into this in the first place. The military has already done it''''s job. They got rid of Saddam. Anything after that - if we''''re to be honest - is the failure of the politicians... abysmal failure - I might add.
5. Fighting terror on its turf and not ours? Wouldn''''t that be Pakistan/Afghanistan?

When we discard all of the perception engineering/manipulation...what do we have left??

Posted by hadenough43

are you privy to information that the government isnt?

[random_radar]

"This is me. Show you can protect the country and keep my family safe or step aside.

Posted by cbscrash07 at 02:24 PM : Feb 21, 2008"

The best way to protect your family and your country is to avoid creating enemies who want to kill you. Let''s analyze how easy this is and why your government is failing you.

Do you break into your neighbors houses, beat them up and steal their belongings? If you do, can you understand why they might retaliate against you? I expect that you understand that leaving your neighbors alone is probably a good idea if you want your family to be safe.

Do you realize that the wealthy and powerful are using the American government to enforce their will on the world? Terrorists do not hate you personally, they hate the American power elite who oppress their nations and people.

The best way to protect your family and your nation is to reign in interventionist United States government that is being used to tyrannize the world. If our government returned to Constitutional principles of peace and freedom at home and non-interventionism abroad, America could return to being an admired light to the world.

If you continue to support the current regime, you will face increasing violence and insecurity until America is converted to a totalitarian police state at war with the entire world. You need to think long and hard about the road you are taking. It has been taken before by many nations who were destroyed, most notably the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany.

[denn034]

Nevermind the fact that the Iraqi government wants us to stay, huh? Besides, abandoning Iraq to the forces of chaos would send a horrendous signal to the rest of the world about our support for allies.

[jwind11]

Do you realize that the wealthy and powerful are using the American government to enforce their will on the world? Terrorists do not hate you personally, they hate the American power elite who oppress their nations and people.



Posted by random_radar

You spoke with these terrorists ? they told you this?

[zoopster1]

Well, no. Obama can only promise to end *America''s involvement* in the Iraq war. That''s what people don''t seem to get. Even after our troops leave, the war will go on. You think we''re the ones doing the majority of the killing over there? Think again. Then a year later, maybe two, a major terrorist incident will occur somewhere in the world, directed at one of our allies, or one of our embassies. Maybe even against us directly. An investigation will find that the planning of the attack was done by one of the religious groups in Iraq. And then we''ll be forced to go back in and refight the war against the same lunatics all over again.

Congratulations, President Obama.

[zoopster1]

Ah, do random_radar''s solution to our terrorist problem is "don''t make enemies". How does one go about that exactly sir? Cut off support for Israel? Stop buying oil from the Saudis? Withdraw all our troops from everywhere, and only send them out when we get attacked? Stop sending foreign aid to all countries, since even helping out Bangladesh is bound to make somebody mad somewhere??

And yet, the same people who want us to leave Iraq to its fate also want us to send the Marines to Darfur, where most of the atrocities are being carried out by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists. Fighting and dying at the hands of US troops in Sudan is bound to make is real popular with the religious nutcases. And these same people also criticize nations like Saudi Arabia for sentencing people to death for questioning Islam. Or sending people to prison for sitting with a man in a Starbucks.

Exactly what leverage sir, apart from bombing, would we have at our disposal to register our displeasure with such practices? Would you consider doing whatever these religious fanatics demand of us, including pulling our women out of schools and adopting Sharia law in place of the Constitution, if it convinces them that we''re not worth attacking?

That isn''t any America I would want to live in. If you''re ok with it, maybe you don''t belong here either.

[zoopster1]

I look at publications and news outlets that refer to this as the "so-called" war on terrorism. What is "so-called" about it?? People are fighting, and dying. People are planning and carrying out attacks against targets belonging to the opposing side. People of both sides are using propaganda and intimidation to convince others to join their cause.

I dunno, but that sounds a lot like a real war to me.

[ajmarine1]

Yes, Obama has promised to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months. Clinton promises to begin withdrawals within 60 days of her inauguration. Most significantly, each has promised a hedge: to keep unspecified numbers of soldiers behind to fight terrorists or train Iraqis and, in Clinton''s case, to protect the Kurds and deter Iranian aggression.

But neither has been pressed in debates or news conferences as to how these residual troops would be left behind. It strains credulity to think that the Iraqis would -- after being told that they are not worth protecting or working with -- allow U.S. troops to stay on and hunt al-Qaeda & Co., or to protect the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad. What carrots do the two Democrats propose to keep this permanently dissed ally on board instead of making any U.S. retreat a hell on earth?

[bluestardad]

ALL THE NEOCONS AND ISRAELI WEASELS IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WILL TRY TO TAINT OBAMA AND STOP THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GET AMERICA OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST...

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

SEND THESE NEOCONS TO FIGHT FOR ROCKS AND SAND NOT AMERICAN SOLDIERS!

[juwboy]

Blue Dastard:

Ishmael, the first Arab, was the illegitimate son of Abraham and Hagar, and Arabs are still b@st@rds, every last one of them.

[mistered9]

Do you believe inreincarnation?
When you die and go to hell, you are reincarnated to earth.
How do you acount for Bush, McCain and Obama??
Better get you act straight folks.

[mistered9]

The only way to end wars, is get rid of all religious beleivers.

[mistered9]

Obama doesn''t want to lose his head to gain votes, he needs his head, that''s where his brains are surpose to be.
Here come the used car salesman.

[paris1969]

A lot can change before we change Presidents .. Obama sets himself up to be mocked by this statement. Turkey is going into Iraq today ... in other words the war in Iraq has changed already.
Hillary has my confidence in solving the issues of this country ... including the war!

[zoopster1]

"The only way to end wars, is get rid of all religious beleivers."

Very astute Mr Ed. Since Islamic nations contain the most fervent and fanatical religious believers, how do you propose we get rid of them? We''ve got A-bombs... that about what you had in mind??

[mbcsmith]

SEND THESE NEOCONS TO FIGHT FOR ROCKS AND SAND NOT AMERICAN SOLDIERS!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by bluestardad at 12:12 AM : Feb 22, 2008


The american people want to leave Iraq honorably with the country in stability. NOT cut and run creating genocide.

[mbcsmith]

You spoke with these terrorists ? they told you this?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jwind11 at 05:36 PM : Feb 21, 2008


LOL...LOL again. Good one. The elitist LIBS post whatever comes to mind and presnt it as fact. Kepp ''em honest.

[lilvinnyb]

During Obamas campaign stops he pledges to end the war in 2009. On 60 minutes he said that as commander-in-chief he has the right to re-assess. He knows full well he can''t withdraw troops. Full scale civil war will materialize.

I notice the writer of this article said "so-called war on terrorism". SIGH! Libs still just dont get it. Has 9/11 not proven anything to you!!!! The terrorists certainly think its a war.

[sjc_1]

Expect to hear more "cut and run" language from McCain in the general election. After more than 5 years in Iraq, at that point the American people have to decide what the best course of action is.

[it_oldtimer]

jwind11 and mbcsmith are laughable idiots. You don''t need to talk directly to any of those entities "personally" to know exactly what they believe - they''re quite capable of stating their views publicly, which is more than sufficient.

Perhaps the above-named contributors have never heard of the "Ethic of Reciprocity", better known as "The Golden Rule". It goes like this: "Treat others as you would like to be treated." Put another way "Whatever you do to others, they are also totally justified in doing to you."

Would we appreciate having a totally unjustified pre-emptive war declared upon our country? Would we want another nation on the other side of the world deciding how we should structure and run our government? Would we want another country to stick their noses in our sovereign political affairs or in our religious affairs? I think not. But the US does this very thing every single day, to other nations, and these other nations do NOT appreciate it, I assure you. They have totally legitimate grievances about this outrageous behavior on our part.

I spent 25 years as a US combat soldier, and I greatly admire the fact that these people are fighting back against US Imperialism as best they can. I would certainly do no less, if I were in their shoes.

Moreover, even if the supposed foreign "terrorist threat" was totally gone tomorrow, I will fight just as vigorously against the wrongheadedness of the US government today, or any other day.

(cont)

[it_oldtimer]

When you''ve all finally gotten over the absurd "threat" of fundamentalist Muslim extremism coming to roost in your home town, you''d better begin to worry about the wrath of US citizens like me, who pose every bit as real a threat to your long-term security. I''ve had enough of this country''s nonsense, and am not afraid to fight my own government, or it''s citizens, if necessary, to finally put an end to it.

"Live, and let live" is very good advice, indeed.

[it_oldtimer]

Declare "victory" in Iraq, and then get the hell out as quickly as possible. Don''t worry about the consequences; that''s the Iraqi''s concern, not ours. They''ll manage, without our unwanted interference.

Send some of those freed-up troops to Afghanistan and finally find and kill Bin Laden, then bring them all home too.

Then take a very long, hard look at the screwed-up foreign policies of THIS country, and all the horrendous blunders we''ve made, which brought all this foreign hatred down upon us all, and learn something from it.

Once we get our big, fat noses out of other countries business, most of these "threats" and the hatreds that inspired them will eventually just dry up and disappear. Until then, suck it up. We''re only getting what we brought upon ourselves, and rightfully deserve.

[it_oldtimer]

@lilvinnyb: "I notice the writer of this article said "so-called war on terrorism". SIGH! Libs still just dont get it. Has 9/11 not proven anything to you!!!! The terrorists certainly think its a war."
-----------------------------------------------------

It''s the Repug neocons who just don''t get it. Screw 9/11 - it was a mere 3000 people - more people die in car accidents every week! Big deal! Who cares about that?

There have ALWAYS been "terrorists" (they just used to be known as nationalistic "patriots"). There will ALWAYS BE terrorists. The world will NEVER, EVER be free of terrorism, no matter how much you spend! This is certainly not at all new, and you should just grow up get used to it. "Terrorism" has been around for millenia, and it''s not going away - ever.

All you can do is try not to **** other people off so that they come after you, and that starts with political reform at home.

Get a clue.

[zoopster1]

I like Oldtimer''s thinking, very pragmatic. Pull our guys out of Iraq and let them kill each other. I''m sure there''s absolutely no chance of anything that happens over there POSSIBLY affecting us here. Oh, and once we find and kill Osama bin Laden, Islamic extremist terrorism around the world will just suddenly end, right? And there will be tickertape parades in Times Square and we can go back to our reality TV-obsessed lives, secure in the knowledge that everyone in the world loves us once more. Right? Because as long as we just "visualize peace", nobody in the world will consider throwing away their own worthless life just to come here and hurt people they will never know. Does that about sum it up?

Whew, that''s a relief. I feel better already.

[pirula73]

Any Democrat that considers him or herself to be a humanitarian should vote for Clinton. Obama arguing about whether we should have gone to war or not is redundant. We have already occupied the country for many years. The issue now is what is our responsibility toward the people of Iraq. Do they have potable water? Is there grid operational? What about all the refugees and displaced people, children that haven''t had education for years, the lack of hospitals and medicines? This is not to suggest that our military should rebuild Iraq; the military is not necessarily the best equipped for this task, but they will play a role, and we need to make sure that no profiteering and corrupt contractors are sent for this task. We may need a new sort of Peace Corp to help rebuild Iraq. But Obama seems only to be concerned with (1) saying "I told you so" and (2) telling the Iraqis "tough! take care of your own problems!" as if we didn''t create them.

[it_oldtimer]

Silly zoopster1 - killing Bin Laden is not going to stop all the people on this planet with a legitimate grudge against us from acting out their rage - it''s just going to salve our own need for national vengeance, nothing more. But maybe that will help us all finally move on.

News flash for you, from somebody who''s actually been there, and talked to these people: they''re going to kill each other whether we stay or not. We certainly cannot stop that, and it''s foolish to think that we can. Religious hatreds are simply like that, you know. They just go on for eons.

What sums it up is this: "whatever you do to others will eventually be done to you."

Their business is not YOUR business. The sooner we accept that, the less we''ll suffer for our hubris.

[it_oldtimer]

Anybody that''s foolish enough to constantly go sticking their noses in hornet''s nests shouldn''t complain at all when they get repeatedly stung.

[zoopster1]

Well Oldtimer that actually makes a tad more sense, certainly more sense than "stick our heads in the sand and they will leave us alone". I am no fool. I''m well aware of the history of the region. But that''s Iraq, and the Middle East in general. Say what you want about George Bush, but is it so wrong to want to change an unacceptable status quo, just because naysayers like you think it can''t be done? Has the last 100 years taught us nothing? We thought that things happening in Afghanistan wouldn''t affect us here either, remember? What about events in China in the 1930s? Europe in the 1940s? When is the lesson going to finally sink in, that isolationism is not practical foreign policy?

Do I want to see Bin Laden dead? Not really. He has no business being a martyr. I think a lifetime in the Colorado Supermax, where he will fade into obscurity, is a much more fitting fate.

As for what happens after that, I can''t predict. But I can be sure of one thing. Against madmen who believe they are right with God, weakness is not an option. Indecision is also not an option. This also isn''t about sending "a message", because we all know fanatics like that don''t heed messages. All we can do is track down and kill them as quickly and efficiently as we can. Innocent people will also die, but that is war. The faster we end it finally and completely, the better off the human race will be.

[it_oldtimer]

@ zoopster1:

The harsh reality of it is: it WON''T end at all, until, to paraphrase what you said, "we track down and kill them as quickly and efficiently as we can."

All 1.1 BILLION of them. Is that truly realistic, in your considered opinion? Because that''s what it will eventually take before it''s truly "over", rest assured.

Our relatively minor military successes thus far have only bred a deeper determination on the part of our adversaries. They are most certainly not suffering the recruiting and sustainability problems that we are here - quite the opposite! The longer we stay in the region, the bigger and angrier their resistance grows.

This really isn''t a war against "terrorism" at all, you see; it''s really an outright "War Against Islam", though no sane US politician will ever dare admit that. But that''s exactly what it''s becoming: a war against the second-largest religion on the planet. It''s a war we can never, ever hope to "win" - any more than the mighty Romans could defeat Christianity, back in their day.

(cont)

[it_oldtimer]

(cont)

I''m not saying that military intervention is never, ever justified. Sometimes we will have to step in, somewhere, sometime. But in this day and age we need to be EXTREMELY careful how, when and where we do that, and take care not to bite off far more than we can ever chew (as we already have, IMHO).

Declaring war on the second largest religion on the planet is the absolute height of political and military folly. It''s sure to end in utter failure and national disgrace, and stigmatize the US for decades, and even centuries, to come.

Quit letting the politicians fool you into thinking that this is actually something "winnable". It''s not. It never will be.

[zoopster1]

I am not suggesting we wipe out all the followers of Islam. There is a radical element among them, nobody really knows how many, that are willing and capable of carrying out unspeakable evil against people who have done them no wrong. That in itself wouldn''t be so bad, if the REST OF THEM DIDN''T TACITLY GO ALONG. They understand where the nutcases are coming from, even if they don''t always condone their methods. What exactly will it take before Muslims have a societal awakening and start to wholly reject the insane philosophy of this lunatic fringe?

In the US, segregation and racism were tolerated for centuries by people who didn''t consider themselves racist at all. They didn''t think it was a big deal and thought black people needed to learn to turn the other cheek and just live with the idea of "separate but equal". It wasn''t until the brutal slayings of people like Emmett Till, and the brutal tactics used against peaceful demonstrators in places like Selma and Montgomery that these so-called "moderates" finally saw the true evil of it, and began to actively fight back against it. The power of the KKK wasn''t broken by the government, it was broken by the PEOPLE.

The Muslim world has not had this kind of awakening yet. If they do, that would be a truly great thing. Until that day however, it is up to us to stop the maniacs. I never, ever want to wake up and see a major American city in flames again. I would rather see Tehran or Riyadh burn first.