Folks who think in simplistic terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" would probably be surprised to see George Soros and George Will essentially the same ideas on the same day.
I would not. Nor would Norman Podhoretz, to whose comments I referred over the weekend. It’s quite natural that a true conservative would take the John Kerry approach to dealing with terrorism. As I’ve said
since we went in in March 2003 (and as The New Republic said at about the same time), what we are engaged in in Iraq is a classically liberal enterprise.
Nor is it surprising that Mr. Soros would embrace the conservative position of treating acts of terrorism as separate, distinct crimes rather than as parts of a larger struggle called the "war on terror." Putative liberals have approached the world this way ever since Vietnam.
Anyway, read the pieces and enjoy the irony.
Tim has pointed out that he was unable to read the WSJ pieces. Sorry; I thought that since I was getting them through OpinionJournal they would be accessible, but I see now that they were not among the free material.
To at least give you the gist of the Soros piece and explain why it reminded me of Will, here is an excerpt:
(T)he war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial
conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown,
al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror
increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence
agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are
still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing
attacks like the one foiled in England.
Related Posts
I can’t get to the Soros piece or the other you reference above because I don’t subscribe to the WSJ. I’ll try to pick up the dead tree version somewhere.
But the Will piece strikes me as clearheaded – honestly, Brad, don’t you think our actions in Iraq are breeding more terrorists than they’re destroying? And if we truly wanted to transform the region, maybe we should start with our “allies” in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where most the actual terrorists seem to be coming from (except for the ones born in England, of course).
Except that we had no justification (or, if you prefer, pretext) for invading Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Because 9/11 terrorists came from there? As you suggest, that would be like invading Britain for the ones who almost pulled off the next “Big One” a few days ago — not quite, of course, since the Brits are the ones who stopped it. Maybe more like invading Jordan for breeding Zarqawi.
With Saddam, we had 12 years of violation of the terms under which we had stopped shooting at him in 1991. We also had a fresh UN resolution from 2002 on top of all the others. And remember, most of the main nations of Europe except France and Germany were willing to go along with us in enforcing, even though they pulled out later (starting with Spain).
If there had been a pretext for starting with Saudi, I would have been for it — as long as it was a sound one.
Brad, is it possible that when Tim said “transform the region” he WASN’T talking about killing people? Or invading anybody? After all he was referring to the Will piece, and I sort of got the impression that George Will thought mass slaughter was a poor terrorist control strategy too…
(and so did Toles! great comic today)
Shorter Warthen: I’m all for war – any war – as long as we have a legalistic pretext.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/15276118.htm
Let me try that again: http://tinyurl.com/gly2r
The link is to a McClatchy story by Tom Lasseter about deteriorating conditions in Iraq.
I also use ‘transform’ often. It doesn’t mean an invasion although that can be a last resort. It simply means getting the people to abandon their terrorist methods and to pursue their goals by peaceful means.
We can engage in denial all we want but there is no escaping the fact that Iran and Syria, especially, must be transformed (by whatever means necessary) before the rest of the region can develop peacefully. There is no other way.
In addition, of course, we should also use law enforcement methods to thwart any attacks closer to home. However, by the time an attack has been carried out with the loss of thousands of lives, it’s absolutely obscene to assert that law enforcement is all we can do. What good does it do to arrest the perpetrators – if they are even still alive? We must go to the source – the sponsors of terrorism – and that’s Iran and Syria.
Oh please, those conditions have been “deteriorating” for 3 years now and somehow things always turn out better and better.
Uncle’s right – I did mean “transform” in a way other than invasion, by encouraging democratic reforms.
Actually, I did originally support the action in Iraq, but I increasingly think we went there because a) we thought it would be easy and b) as some sort of revenge for Saddam outlasting George I, and I say that in all seriousness.
I also didn’t think Iraq would mean abandoning Afghanistan, or that it would become the centerpiece of the bigger war on terrorism.
And not to steer us too much off-course here, but someone set me straight on this one. The Shia in Iran (and most everywhere) are, for our purposes the “bad guys,” but in Iraq, the Sunni were the bad guys. But it seems the Shia are returning the favor for years of persecution under Saddam’s Baathists and Sunni by waging war on the Sunni now. Yeah, I know, the Sunni started it, but both sides seem as bad as the other to me there.
Also, it’s increasingly the Shia who are demanding that we get out of Iraq, and look more than ready to support (or get support from) their Shia brothers in Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
Am I offbase here?
Also, it’s increasingly the Shia who are demanding that we get out of Iraq,
Well, Tim, there’s this (from the link I posted above:
Shiite Muslim parliament member Jalaladin al Saghir thinks U.S. policies have lost touch with reality.
“All the American policies have failed because the American analysis of the situation is wrong; it is not related to reality,” Saghir said. “The slaughtered Iraqi man on the street conveys the best explanation” for what’s happening in Iraq.
I increasingly think we went there because a) we thought it would be easy – Tim
Yep: http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
The first week, President Bush and General Franks said this was a 10-year project.
What bothers liberals is that national defense has an higher priority than refilling their welfare trough.
George Soros doesn’t think about American interests because he isn’t an American. He is a currency trader, who makes money off instability in the world.
BUSH TO STAR ON FOX’S 24?
Rove Fears Role May Confuse Constituents
By Mark Miller
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The producers of FOX TV’s hit drama, 24, can count one more viewer among the show’s loyal audience — President George Bush! The Emmy Awardwinning show stars Kiefer Sutherland as counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer.
“The President had watched a few shows over the years, but he had trouble understanding the main concept, in which a single day’s activities are stretched across a full season,” confided a White House insider.
“Finally, trusted adviser Karl Rove sat Mr. Bush down and slowly explained it, in much the same way he does foreign policy, domestic policy and how cell phones work. He said, ‘The show is about a counterterrorism unit within the U.S. government, protecting the country from foreign and domestic terrorists.’ The President’s eyes lit up. He finally understood and has been a loyal fan ever since.”
In fact, Bush has become such a big fan that he reportedly asked the producers to let him guest-star as one of the counterterrorism agents alongside Sutherland’s Jack Bauer.
Two weeks later, according to the insider, the producers delivered to the White House a script featuring President Bush as special agent Eddie Burke, who ends up single-handedly “taking out” an entire gang of terrorists.
Bush was just about to commit to the part when Rove put a damper on it. “He explained that it would be confusing and distracting for the American public to see their President packing heat and talking into his sleeve,” said our source.
After Rove explained it four more times to the President, and two times after that very slowly, Bush finally understood. Grumpily, he informed the producers that he would not be guest-starring.
Bush is currently trying to figure out a way he can guest-star on the show as himself, even though the show already has a U.S. President. “I don’t see that as an obstacle,” Bush told Rove. “I see it as an opportunity.”
“. . .Iran and Syria, especially, must be transformed (by whatever means necessary) before the rest of the region can develop peacefully. There is no other way.”
Yeah there is.
I would say 10 years is on the — and excuse me for using the word accurately, which is politically unpopular on all sides these days — conservative estimate.
I have never thought it would be easy. I direct you again to my column of 3/23/03, which I republished here on the blog back near its third anniversary. At that time I mentioned that the Iraq commitment would by necessity take not only longer than four years, but longer than eight years. That was in the context of talking about election cycles. It’s quite reasonable to believe it would take much longer — and that’s if things were going more smoothly than they are now.
If Bush’s successor’s successor is able to manage things so well that we are able to pull back troops from the Mideast without disastrous consequences by the end of his or her term(s), I will be surprised.
Oh, Tim — sorry if I misunderstood you. Since this was in the context of talking about Iraq, I assumed you meant, "Why didn’t we do what in did in Iraq in those places instead?" I’ve heard that question posed many times (generally as deliberate hyperbole, not as a serious proposal), and I thought you were reiterating it. And instead of saying, "Are you kidding?" I decided to answer seriously.
Lee: If liberals are all in favor of “refilling their welfare trough”, what are conservatives in favor of? Tax cuts in a time of war (a new precedent)? Busting the budget with ill-designed entitlement program add-ons (Medicare drug benefit)? Setting on your a** while a major American city drowns (OK, there’s plenty of blame to go around on that one)?
Nope, Brad, not even I go to that level of hyperbole, although I can see why someone might think I would.
Thanks for the links, KC. I swear I can’t keep up with who the good guys are anymore.
Yeah there is.
You know, just wishing really, really hard doesn’t make it so! THere is no other way.
And your ability to state a proposition doesn’t make it true.
Yeah there is.
You can get the WSJ piece by going to http://www.GeorgeSoros.com
The website is dedicated to Soros’s new book and has excerpt from his new book “The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror”
Or here it is —
Wall Street Journal
”A Self-Defeating War”
By George Soros
By George Soros — The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts — Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia — a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence.
Unfortunately, the “war on terror” metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.
What makes the war on terror self-defeating?
• First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.
• Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush’s global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.
• Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.
• Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between “us” and “them.” We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.
Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.
With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.
Mr. Soros, a financier, is author of “The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror” (Public Affairs, 2006).
I have never thought it would be easy.
Maybe you didn’t, due to some secret knowledge you acquired, but the war’s architects kept telling us it would be easy.
As I recollect, this war was sold to the public on the basis that Hussein was an imminent threat. “He doesn’t look like a man who’s disarming,” remember that? It was assuredly not promoted before the fact (even NOW no one in the Bush admin. will come clean about what we’re doing there) as a long term grueling exercise in nation-building. Nope, democracy was supposed to magically flower all over the ME as soon as we deposed the evil Hussein.
I really do not recall Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld telling America that it was going to be making a ten-or-more year commitment to Iraq.
Yeah,remember that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED stuff?
Michael, that was well-written. Thank you.
Oh, I guess it was Soros who wrote it. No matter, thanks for quoting it here!
Brad, Iraq is for now the primary front in the war on terror, but it is a front we created. Unfortunately, we appear to be poised to exponentially multiply our mistakes in Iran as many on this site will soon get their wish. Democracy and reform were beginning to show signs of life across the ME, but were halted by our invasion which only strengthened radical elements (Hamas, Iran, Lebanon, etc.).
I know many neocons such as yourself request a prolonged period of warmongering (now 10 years you say) before we check the scoreboard, but no rational person would conclude we are “safer” now than before we invaded Iraq. The premise that a longer or more brutal occupation (or perhaps multiple occupations and simultaneous wars) will not teach them to thank us for our largesse.
We are losing the war on terror and so is Israel and we have raised the future threat to the US exponentially. People strap bombs to themselves to fight invaders and occupiers. They hate our policies, not our “freedom or values”. Our military budget exceeds the rest of the world combined and as a result we are the only nation on the planet which faces NO existential threat to our existence (other than environmental). We have the ability to obliterate any nation or groups of people “with a return address” and will do so to protect our homeland but not our economic interests or for any grand plans of world dominance. If we managed to coexist with the USSR for 50 years on the brink of Armageddon at any moment, I think we can deal with our present challenge in more substantive, ethical and responsible ways.
Democracy and reform were beginning to show signs of life across the ME
Could you give us an example or two of such democracy and reform before the Iraq invasion?
The elections of Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hamas in Palestine and the weakening of the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon are felt by many to be a direct result of US intervention and aggression. We have set back reform movements across the middle east (Egypt, Syria, and ironically Iraq) and enhanced the prestige and popularity of extremist groups fueling further radicalism. Iran’s posture is certainly in response to our acts. Unfortunately, it has also weakened us militarily, diplomatically, and by by virtue of the loss of the air of invincibility. Is there a single Muslim nation which could or would welcome Pres Bush on a state visit? He , and unfortunately by association we, are “radioactive”. Prior to the destruction of Lebanon, Egypt, SA, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah. Now all have rallied to their side and Nasrallah is the most respected man in the ME while Lebanon is on the verge of becoming a failed state. In 2000 in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation, US was viewed favorably by 75 % of the population- In 2004, it was down to single digits with with 80% “fearing an attack from the US”. Worlwide suicide bombings have increased over 400% since 2000 forcing the admin to stop keeping track of the data-too inconvenient. These policies have clearly failed to produce less Muslim extremism and radicalism, which even the Pres has admitted are the root causes of terrorism. Yet we continue to listen to those that got us into this mess-as long as the killing continues we are asked to refrain from assessing the results.
We can’t rid the world of Islamic extremism and US hatred by bombing it away-it will only worsen the problem and produce more violence-guaranteed-there can be no reasonable doubt. This is not being “strong” on defense- it is madness.
KC, Within days after 9-11, Bush in a national briefing said that the perpetrators would be tracked down and brought to justice, and that we were in for a very long war on terror. You can look it up. By very long, he didnt mean a year or two.
To put things in perspective:
* Saddam Hussein killed far more Iraqis per year than have been in killed on all sides in the fighting and terrorist attacks since he was deposed by US coalition forces.
* The UN extortion and black market dealing with Saddam killed an estimated 125,000 people a year for 10 years, by its own estimates ( UNICEF reports ).
* Attacks on America have stopped since we took the fight to the sources in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was the small, partial rollback in 2001 of the Democrat’s tax increases which sparked the recovery from the last Clinton recession, and generated more than enough new tax revenue to pay for our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The deficits only exist because of increases in social welfare spending, and the Democrats wanted to increase that by another $114 BILLION this year, and to pay for it with more debt.
Jim you continue to amaze me with your thoughful insight into the foreign affairs nightmare we find ourselves in. Sadly our leaders in Washington (and Brad Warthen) seem incapable of understanding these complexities.
Bill Clinton was making a tiny bit of headway in the world but the Decider has clearly undone all this hard-earned work and then some.
Suicide bombings have increased because US forces have taken away every other tactic from the terrorists.
Having now read the Soros piece, I agree that he and Will are saying much the same thing, and I tend to agree with them.
Since Wahabi and Shia indoctrination has been going on for several generations, it will likely take at least a generation to temper that fire. That’s assuming that economic opportunities spread in places like Pakistan and around the Persian Gulf. If young folks get involved with work — as they do in Indonesia — the threat of their being content with a medieval worldview lessens. To prepare for work they need education in something other than medieval mysteries.
Without a growing economy and a variety of jobs for folks to do, there’s little pressure for upgrading the status of women from that of chattel to partner or equal. At the heart of the Wahabi and Shia extremism is a perverse, irrational, male-dominated obsession with subjugating or eliminating the non-believer, reminiscent of the Thirty Years’ War, but with a worldwide battlefield. If that took thirty or so years to sort out by mass murder and the movement of hundreds of thousands throughout Central Europe in search of a place where they could practice their particular religion, I suppose we can expect something similar.
I’m not getting all Freudian here, but the unique ingredient with today’s Islamic extremists is the sexual aspect where the combatants ritually shave body hair so as to be appealing to the virgins awaiting them. Perhaps that’s a recruitment tool for the suicide bomber corps, but it is faithful to their notion of women as inferior beings worthy only of serving males. They must have a strange notion of motherhood, what their mothers are to them.
So, if they want to kill you for their own reasons, how is one to handle them? That’s the important question. Some here seem to think that it can be managed. The State Department’s diplomats won out a couple of years ago and have been trying to manage Syria, with about the same success that Warren Christopher had during his 23 trips to Damascas. Old man Assad showed his respect by keeping Christopher waiting for hours on end, yet Warren kept on coming back. What do you think Assad really thought about the US?
We can revert to the less active sort of diplomacy and engagement that didn’t work before. That seems to be what Will and Soros believe will gain respect for America.
But they and some of you ignore one simple fact: that approach could cost millions of lives.
The Bush administration is implementing a brave and humane strategy designed to limit the number of Muslim casualties, especially Muslim civilian casualties. It may also be a misguided one, but we need to pursue it first, because its failure will result in the loss of millions of lives. Bush is giving the Islamic world a chance to avoid destruction a chance it may or mat not take. Should this strategy fail, all that’s left is the inevitable Tancredo option: extremists will at some point use nuclear weapons against the US, vaporizing some city. No US president — not even Dennis the Menace — would be able to resist the popular outcry for retribution.
Will knows something about baseball, so he should understand why folks don’t seem to care for the US. Look at the folks who hate the Yankees. Why? They are powerful, successful, rich, and good-looking, and they can do anything. What’s not to hate? Worrying about anti-Americanism in the Middle East is wrong-headed. They hate us for their own reasons, about the only thing we can do is to cease breathing.
As for the rest of the world, when have they loved us for any period longer than a year? Consider this:
Bill Clinton did try to do some great things, but he wasn’t a clutch hitter. FBI Director Louis Freeh found Bill of little help in terror investigations. Bush is a doer who wants to fix things; with a little more than two years left to serve, he’s got a lot more he intends to get done.
Bush a doer? Given that in every area of foreign policy the situation has deteriorated, and in some cases deteriorated substantially, it’s really laughable that anyone can claim the “Decider” is a doer. Please Mike, offer something more substantial than Louis Freeh’s uncontested ranting about Bill Clinton’s failures in the Khobar Tower incident. The indisputable fact remains, Iran is far more of threat now than they were in 2000.
Clinton’s policy of engagement was gradually working to help make the world a bit safer. Between 9-11, Afghanastan and the debacle in Iraq 6,000 Americans are dead on Bush’s watch from various midde-east radical initiatives. And the world is a far more dangerous place. Just ask anyone who’s flown in the last week. With 5 more years of progress we’ll have to fly naked.
Bush is a doer
Of the wrong things. Consistently.
Libya giving up nuclear weapons. India signing a mutual defense pact with the US. Britain, Australia, Poland, and other nations standing firm with us. Saudi Arabia condemning Hezbollah. Afghan. converted to a democracy. I could go on but the foreign policy initiatives of Bush are amazing. And doing all this while not experiencing one major terror attack since 9-11 is all the more amazing. Let’s give credit where it is due. That will be hard for the Bush haters, but reasonable people will see the facts.
As for flying naked, I’ll go for that if I get to pick my fellow passengers. Like the Swedish bikini team. Visit Swedish Bikin Team!
Note to Brad – This link may break your all time hotlink record, whatever it is.. hahahha
“Bush is a doer who wants to fix things;”
“I wish,” spoke the King, “to have you make something fall from my skies that no other kingdom has ever had before. What can you do? What will you make?
For a moment they stood thinking, blinking their creaky eyse. Then they spoke a word…one word…”Ooobleck.”
“Oobleck?” asked the King. “What will it look like?”
“Won’t look like rain. Won’t look like snow.
Won’t look like fog. That’s all we know.
We just can tell you any more.
We’ve never made Oobleck before.”
They bowed. They started toward the door.
“We go now to our secret cave
On Mystic Mountain Neeka-tave.
There, all night long, we’ll work for you
And you’ll have Oobleck when we’re through!”
“They’ll do something crazy, whispered Bartholomew. “Call them back, your Majesty! Stop them!
“Stop them? Not for a ton of diamonds, chuckled the King. “Why, I’ll be the mightiest man that ever lived! Just think of it! Tomorrow, I’m going to have OOBLECK!”
–Dr. Seuss
Mike, there is some truth to what you are saying, but you just gave it away with this paragraph:
There you go, John Wayne. Go in with guns blazing, special forces.
I recognize that you probably wrote this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think you still are saying what is the essence of many here: We think we can do anything, so we don’t work smart or rely on others. We get advice from those who know culture, but in the end, we don’t follow it, because we always know better. After all, we are the good ol’ USA!
God help us. If you want to know the truth, I think He is humbling us, and I don’t think He is finished yet. Nobody will much like that last statement, but everybody knows where I stand, anyway. I think it would do us all some good to read some Old Testament prophets, though.
Herb, I don’t much like the modern (per)version of Christianity, which is not much more than packaging for a secular message that we have no right to intervene at any level to improve society, because no one is any better than anyone else. That is pure secular malarky.
America is at the same point in its history that Britain was in 1835, the world’s premier military force, a wealthy nation of laws, which chose to do more than just extract riches from its colonies. Instead, they recognized that they were a superior culture which had the power to bring civilization to dark corners of the world, and set about to do so. Just as they eradicated the Thugs in India so the Indians could have some better control of their destiny, America is eradicating the thugs in Iraq and Afghanistan, so those of the Arab world who want to create a peaceful and just society will have the opportunity to do so.
A lot of Brits didn’t get the big picture then, and a lot of Americans don’t get it now.
Bud,
I appreciate your comments and enjoy your posts as well. I doubt that we are changing any hearts and minds, but I think we would all agree that it occasionally feels good to rant.
It has been said that the definition of lunacy is to repetitively perform the identical act and to await a different result. This seems to apply to our present middle east policy which will only fuel the endless cycle of reciprocal violence.
Lee,
some people would call this “modern (per)version of Christianity” liberation theology, professing to be Christian on the outside while being thoroughly red on the inside.
Mike,
I think in the interest of future global peace and security we have to be able to better understand the motivation of people that wish us harm than to dismiss it as simply “for their own reasons”, as if it was because they had nothing else to do that day but kill themselves. You claim our invasion/occupation has been “bold and humane”, while the muslim world sees a Hobbesian state of anarchy, violence and lawlessness. They see US troops accused of beating, raping, shooting, torturing and maiming citizens of a country that did not attack us and which did not even threaten their closest neighbors. We see their “terror” as the ultimate evil, while our “terror” either doesn’t exist or was entirely appropriate. Without delving into the litany of past examples, nearly all violent acts are retribution for a previous offense.
Over 3400 people were dumped in the Baghdad morgue in July alone with an avg of >100/day. The total fatality count since the invasion is unknown because we don’t keep track of Muslim deaths. Policies like this are going to prevent a “mushroom cloud” over NY? The fact that we haven’t been “attacked” since 9/11 discounts the sacrifice of 2800 lives and 20,000 casualties-this is not morally or financially sustainable. We also seem to forget that while we often suffer from national amnesia regarding our own contributions to the bloody historical record, the Muslims don’t. Osama cited US offenses vs Muslims primarily in the 1980’s as the precipitating factor for 9/11. Again, religious extremism provided the jihadists absolution, but grievances for past offenses provided the impetus.
The Truman doctrine and the concepts of containment and detente certainly were beneficial during the cold war and “protected our vital interests worlwide”, but came at the price of supporting tyranny, assasinations, war, violence and oppression of many people around the globe-particularly in the ME. We supported democracies only if they served our interests and sought regime change in those that didn’t. We will be paying the price for these policies for many generations-we will never eliminate all our “enemies”-we must coexist. If you are awaiting a “New American Middle East” that bends to the will of the US and serves as collection of client states- it didn’t happen with Christopher and it certainly won’t happen with a Sec of State with an oil tanker named after her. I would guess that most Americans would support weekly visits to the ME by their representatives to work for peaceful resolutions, rather than seeking to hasten Armageddon. How many “powerful, rich, good-looking countries” did the terrorists fly over to strike America? To ask “why” is of vital importance.
The fact that we haven’t been “attacked” since 9/11 discounts the sacrifice of 2800 lives and 20,000 casualties-this is not morally or financially sustainable.
You mean WW II began and ended with Pearl Harbor? Surely we couldn’t have sustained anything more, could we? How in the world have we (or at least the Left part of us) turned into such spineless wimps in the 65 years since then?
How in the world have we (or at least the Left part of us) turned into such spineless wimps in the 65 years since then?
The more valid question: have we (or at least the Right part of us) turned into murderous fools willing to bomb foreign civilians; invade countries under false pretenses; sacrifice our uniformed sons and daughters in a tribal civil war; and, seek world domination at the behest of fantatical ideologues?
Brad’s, Lex’s and Dave’s posts answer the question affirmatively and enthusiastically.
Heh. At least in WW II people were willing to see millions of enemy personnel dead as well as hundreds of thousands of our own casualties to make sure that our own country would survive. The Left nowadays couldn’t care less about our own survival, and in fact gives aid and comfort to the Islamist fascists.
The stunning part is the fact that these Islamic fascists’ beliefs and goals are absolutely the opposite of those of the Left. If these were Christians, we would never hear the end of “theocracy”, “dictatorship”, etc. etc.. Yet when the Islamist fascists execute people for being gay, showing their neck or forearm or, horrors of horrors, being raped, or marrying someone without their father’s consent, then of course we just have to “understand” them. They just have a “different culture”, after all. Nothing to worry about, right.
If you ever want to see the inhumanity of our Islamist friends towards their women just watch this video of Muslim women eating spaghetti. And this is extraordinary freedom for these women because apparently they were let out for an hour or two in “normal” society!!
You know you would go ballistic if anyone in this country tried to make women do this, yet you have no problem with this sort of treatment by your allies. Amazing, just amazing.
Here is a summation of the leftist’s take on the situation in the Middle East. Let’s abandon Iraq and whatever happens happens, Shi’ite happens right. So what if the Baathists begin filling mass graves with Shia, and vice versa, we had a civil war, let those idiots have one too. And the Kurds, who cares, anyway. And all those people who got purple ink on their fingers by voting, how stupid they were to want some type of self government. Not our problem. With all troops out, when the attack on Israel begins, we don’t care as long as we can safely watch it on Fox News or CNN from afar. Hey, the Jews deserve it anyway, look how successful they have been while the Arabs have suffered poverty for generations. And then when the Arabs bring gasoline to $10 a gallon, well, you see, Algore was right all along. Abolish NASCAR and the world will be fine. It’s Bush’s fault anyway, with Clinton gas was at $1.00 a gallon. Then when the Muslims begin their push westward, and more war entails in Europe, well, we have an ocean separating us, why get involved? And President Barach Obama has some Muslim origins, so he will make sure we are left alone. They trust him, don’t they?
The Democrats showed their lack of concern when they stood by and let 1,200,000 Iraqis starve to death due to UN stealing of the food-for-oil money, and 500,000 Rwandans hacked to death because American white liberals think blacks should be left to fight it out, as if they were some ecosystem being left alone.
Jim – You wrote:
One may wonder and research why they hate us or Why do they hate Airplanes, but such research need not interfere with necessary action.
As I’ve written earlier:
Shia Iran through Hizbullah started its attacks against the US no later than 1983. Ramzi Yousef began in 1991 to plan a bombing attack within the US with advice and assistance of his dear uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the guy who later would be called “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks”. When he tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, was Ramzi motivated solely by the 1991 Gulf War that ousted Iraqi forces from the land of his birth? After he escaped to the Philippines and began planning Operation Bojinka with his uncle’s help, did he test his bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 to protest the conditions in sweatshops by killing an industrial sewing machine engineer? The fact is that he and his associates each had a complex mix of motivations that we can at our leisure sort out, but we shouldn’t let that keep us from acting, no?
The real problem is that some believe that we can determine the motivations and quickly develop a counterargument that efficiently, effectively — no muss, no fuss — solves the problem so that we can move on, arm in arm, into our brave new world.
But what if your opponents are motivated by a fantasy? There’s a compelling case that the Palestinian tradition of terror is based on the fantasy that one day the so called “Zionist occupation” will end, a fantasy fed by Israel’s neighbors and other opponents. After decades of negotiations, Israel decided to withdraw first from southern Lebanon and more recently the Gaza Strip. The real solution, of course, is what Iran’s president has in mind, the elimination of Israel, so telling the Palestinians that their motivation is a fantasy is not helpful.
Look at domestic politics where a lot of folks seem to suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome):
The mere articulation of this motive sends its sufferers into conniption fits; bringing it up is counterproductive.
Finally, I happen to think that many of the opponents of the war on Islamic terrorists are motivated by fear of several types.
Why do they hate us? What motivates that guy coming down the alley toward me with a knife? I’ll leave that unanswered until after I deal with the threat.
Mike C. writes:
Look at domestic politics where a lot of folks seem to suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome):
the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.
I can’t speak for the Iranians, Palestinians, Batthists or other unreasonable people in the middle east but I can address this so-called BDS syndrome. I for one had no particular favorite in the 2000 election. In fact I voted for Ralph Nader knowing fully well that he had no chance. But over the course of time it became apparent that our president was not up to the job. His ability to communicate is limited to simpleton sound bites. His decision to continue reading to second graders for 5+ minutes AFTER receieving word of the SECOND plane hitting the WTC was evidence that he was not capable of fast thinking. Bush continues to support Don Rumsfeld long after everyone on both the left and right have recognized his incompetence on the job. His arrogance, pettiness, false bravado are all characteristics of a man unfit for duty has commander in chief. By the time of the 2004 election it was crystal clear to me that this man failed to protect us before 9-11. He failed to finish the job in Afghanastan, a nation which continues to waller in poverty and sectarian violence. He has failed to capture Bin-Laden. He continues to fail in Iraq. The middle-east in exploding in violence. North Korea is advancing it’s nuclear ambitions. We can’t fly on airplanes with any assurance of safety. All of the observations are evidence that Bush is a failure as a president. It’s the evidence, not some blind, irrational dislike for the man. It’s the right that continues to pound away at that phoney “the-left-just-hates-Bush” theme in order to score political points.
Let’s turn this around. I say it’s the Right that irrationally follows this man like a bunch of sheep regardless of his many and growing failures. It’s the right who fawn over him like some starry eyed groupie at a rock concert. It’s the right who ignores evidence of the president’s failures. And if we don’t wake up and rationally look at this man in an objective way our nation is doomed to suffer a long and irrevocable decline. Wake up starry eyed sheep and recognize the left isn’t a bunch of Bush haters. No, we’re rational thinkers who love our country and only wish we had a leader who could measure up to the spirit of America’s values. And frankly, Bush is not that man.
You’re right, Mike.
Bringing up so-called BDS is counter-productive because it’s a red herring you use to discount any opposition to Dear Leader as “derangement.”
But that didn’t stop you from bringing it up. I bet that it’s always good for a self-congratulatory chuckle on wingnut sites.
The lampooning dismissal of what (“Why do they hate airplanes?”) drives Muslims to kill themselves and innocent bystanders is a laff riot. Some on your side at least seriously claim that these gangs of radical fundamentalist Muslim terrorists actually represent an ideological threat on par with Nazi Germany , Imperial Japan or the x-USSR.
At least the advocates of the “Clash of Civilizations” make an effort to explain the motivations of our attackers. You’re fine with lazily relegating them to the “bizarre brown furriners that need killing” category.
Conveniently, we’ve got a mighty all volunteer armed force that can snuff out anybody willing to fight us on our terms. That gives people like you the opportunity to ignore any critical examination of the role of our nation’s foreign and economic policies in creating murderous enemies.
Kill’em all and let God sort it out, eh?
Why did the Democrats so overwhelmingly support war with Iraq from 1998 through 2003, until President Bush achieved a quick military conquest of Iraq?
RTH –
I did have some fun with the post, but as an exercise in making my point: lots of folks want to use the issue of motivations as a way to avoid acting. I think one must act while getting to the root causes, if such is possible.
Here and elsewhere I’ve tried to be thoughtful and I have thought and written about US foreign policy and your objections to it. But it’s tough to build arguments to talk folks out of irrational beliefs. I cited “Zionist Occupation” and BDS as examples.
So let us try to discern motives, let us think about our long-term policies and short term-actions, but let us act too. Harold Evans in the UK Guardian has something quite pertinent on that:
That seems balanced and pertinent.
Mike, you and Brad ought to view this BBC documentary series— Brad especially, since he’s come out of the closet as a neo-con dupe.
Funny how having a missile pointed at them can bring sudden clarity to the thinking of even journalists at The Guardian.
It’s not the radicals in the middle-east that concern me. It’s a given that there is a small core of islamic terrorists that cannot be dealt with diplomatically. That seems to be well established and the neocons distort the majority on the left in that regard. What really concerns most on the left is the larger, potentially moderate factions throughout the world that want peace and mutual respect with their neighbors. These are the people who are not only forgotten but marginilized by the neocons. Because of this moderates are now providing foot soldiers to the radicals in the region. So what had been a police action to track down the radicals, fully supported by the left in America and the entire world, including Iran, has now deteriorated into civil war in Iraq and a growing hatred of America in other parts of the region. So instead of a manageable and far safer situation that might have existed by now we are instead dealing with an all out war against people that post 9-11 were sympothetic to us. The result is much bloodshed and a greatly deteriorating security situation.
It is only on the very far left fringe that you’ll find a few people that can only think in terms of diplomacy with even the most radical elements in the middle-east. These are the people who opposed action in Afghanastan in late 2001. Most on the left recognize the value of that operation and were in fact appalled by the premature shift in emphasis to a rather benign secular nation (Iraq).
At this point we’re left with few good options. But the best seems to be a complete and rapid withdrawl from Iraq followed by a new attempt at diplomacy and understanding. Not with the radical core, but with moderates who abhor the radicals as much as we do. Only now, thanks to the Decider, this course if is going to be much tougher.
At this point we’re left with few good options.
Make that NO good options thanks to the Decider and Rummy.
Let us not return to the chilling days of yesteryear, when Clinton shivered in the Oval Office, issuing declarations of how he had solved crises by avoiding them.
Mike, your citation of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” (a disease apparently afflicting over 60% of Americans!) is simply a reflection of your cowardice. You don’t have the courage to argue in favor or your position, so you seek to shield it from criticism by portraying your detractors as “deranged”.
Your endless, rambling pronouncements on foreign policy are based simply on “white man’s burden” racism, the notion taht white people are destined to rule brown people. That’s the result of living in a state whose entire structure is based on nothing but racism and handouts.
I need to make clear that I am not advocating liberation theology—which is well defined in this article by Pope Benedict (obviously, as an evangelical I don’t agree with everything he has written—and I certainly don’t like the translation of the German evangelisch as “evangelical,” especially when Bultmann is described as “evangelical,” which he was clearly not—but with the essence of it). Liberation theology puts the cart before the horse. It starts with man, and pretty much leaves God out. Jesus taught the exact opposite–he starts with the transformation of the individual, which then has very practical implications.
First century Palestine was a hotbed of various kinds of theologies, including a form of “liberation theology.” John’s Gospel especially reflects that context. The people had redefined “freedom” in their own terms; Jesus brings them back to what true freedom is. From a human point of view, Jesus was crucified because of the political agitationsof the time (which never stops God from carrying out his own purposes). But people tried to use him for their own purposes, and they still do. One very good, but also controversial example is the American revolution (by quoting from the following website I am not necessarily endorsing it):
I’m not necessarily disputing the right of a people to determine their own government. I would dispute very much redefining the biblical meaning of ”freedom” to be political freedom, and that is what happened, to some degree, in the American Revolution. Whitefield preached “freedom,” but it became redefined in a unique American brand of “liberation” theology. It is a mixed bag, with a lot of good developments, as our own Columbia native professor Nathan Hatch (now president of Wake Forest) develops. But it is dangerous, as well.
I would submit that the danger of that American liberation theology is with us today in the tendency to use relegate God to our cultural American tribal god, and to use him for our purposes. That includes fighting wars in His name. It may also include forcing other peoples to adopt our system of government, especially if we are convinced that our way is God’s way.
We don’t need to invoke our God in order to justify fighting Islamofascism and Muslim terrorists. Understanding their demonic motivations is only useful as a tool to interrupting their propaganda and recruitment so we can stabilize the number of our opponents, and more quickly eradicate most, and bring the rest to submission.
All Christians have a duty to confront what the Moslems are doing across the world. Actually, as Christians if we truly love the Moslems in spite of their heresy and faults, we will show them how much we love them by changing them. Since they won’t change peacefully, they give us no choice, so in fact our actions are out of a spirit of Christian love. In the end, they are better off for our love and the world is better off.
I have a suggestion, “if they sink, they are innocent, if they float then it proves they are a witch.”
Much of the logic above recalls one of my all time favorite pre-invasion “Darth Vader” quotes:
“The fact that the weapons inspectors haven’t found WMD, proves that Saddam is hiding them”.
If only this was from Comedy Central, I would laugh instead of weep.
The fact that we FOUND the 5,000 cannisters of WMD proves Saddam was hiding them.
Just like Clinton and all the Democrats said back in 1998, when they dropped 80,000 tons of bombs on Iraq to destroy some of the WMD he was hiding.
Lee, I am certain that along with 60% of the American public (interestingly the same # who believe the war was a mistake even though they errantly believe we found the dreaded WMD) you are sincere in your belief that we found what we were looking for. You must be referring to Santorums announcement a while back about the new “discovery”. These 500 weapons were pre-gulf war weapons likely provided by the US , buried and abandoned. This is not what we were looking for. We spent 18 months and 900 million dollars looking and here was the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group:
“While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”
Even Pres Bush reluctantly concluded:
“The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”
David Kay said that the average American has more dangerous chemicals “under their sink”. Colin Powell described his testimony to the UN as the “lowest point in my life” and a “blot on his record” as nearly every statement has been shown to be incorrect (and that is being generous) , We chased the weapons inspectors out while they were receiving “full and complete cooperation from the Iraqi govt” in order to start the bombing before it got hot that summer. The war was going to last “5 days, 5 weeks, or 5 months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”(Rumsfeld). I won’t “pile on” with the pre-war quotes but the record is damning.
This war did not have to happen and it has not been worth one American life or for that matter one Iraqi life. Unfortunately, it is 4 years too late to continue to debate the pre-texts for this “fiasco”.
Santorum only referred to a small subset of the most recent captured chemical weapons. And the US didn’t give to to Saddam; he made them in a German-built factory.
Clinton, Gore and Kerry claimed Saddam had tons of WMD back in 1998, 1999 and 2000. They were right. They just failed to do anything about it.
Last month we captured a working factory making fresh chemical weapons, which shows that Saddam had the equipment hidden away, and the people trained to use it.
Some of the weapons we found date from the war with Iran. They are still quite deadly, just as mustard gas from World War I is still deadly.
Stop making excuses for Saddam and the terrorists and join Western civilization.
I realize you have good intentions but did you not read the conclusions of the administration (not a link from Move on .org):
Iraq unilaterally destroyed its weapons stockpile in 1991. During the 1990s we attached the CIA to the weapons insp team and tried to assasinate Saddam (under Clinton) on two occasions, leading him to kick out the inpectors. We knew very little about his activities a decade before the invasion, and I do believe politicians on both sides sincerely believed he was hiding something. I won’t continue this “pretext for war monologue” unless you insist.
OK Jim, let’s localize this discussion. Let’s say you live in Irmo and have a somewhat cantankerous neighbor on your street. This neighbor, in the past, had possession of dynamite sticks. You know that because in a dispute with another neighbor, he was angry over a shed he thought was built on his land and literally used the dynamite to blow it up. So, all that was settled out of court, but you find that he is now angry with you and your family. Something about your dogs trespassing on his property or whatever. You go to the police and report this guy. He says at first the police can inspect him but not in specific places (under his house for example). Then he throws the police off of his property. Now he starts bragging to other neighbors that if you threaten him in any way, it will be the Mother of all Neighborhood Wars and you will be annihilated. Sooooooooooooo, you have children in your home, let alone pets, and you now have this nutcase living next door who has used dynamite before on another neighbor. Question:
Do you call the police (i.e. U.N.) and ask them to clear the dynamite? By the way, you find out this the nutcase has been endearing himself to the police with some nice donations. Under the table of course.
OR
Do you do nothing?
OR
Do you get off your backside and make sure this nutcase does not have any more dynamite.
OK, Jim, what is your choice?
OR
Well, I am rarely at a loss for words (although my first response was-of course-you blow up the whole street including the neighbors which probably would have been a future nuisance anyway), but I read that three times and still wasn’t sure where you were going with this, but I will give it a whirl.
The first assumption is that you are sincerely interested in only avoiding injury at the hands of the this unstable neighbor and that you are indeed a good neighbor yourself. Even a cursory review of PNAC documents and authors (Kristol, Ledeen, Perle, and the NRO boys (Victor Davis Hansen) reveals that they are fixated on the use of US might to dominate and control the ME to our economic benefit and for Israels enhanced security. It is our right as the sole superpower to exert force to achieve our will across the globe with no restraints-it is truly The New American Century. Domestic security was at most an afterthought. That is likely why there is no exit plan, nor will there ever be one if they have their way-we aren’t leaving. So in your scenario, you may have ulterior motives for your desire to bring him to justice. Furthermore, the payoffs from the police went to your family as well (US companies intimately involved). However, the police insp team is well thought of with no history of corruption. They are now searching his premises and want to finish the job. You don’t chase them off to torch the property. Rather you monitor the inspection with the rest of the neighborhood-a neighborhood watch if you will.
I blogged briefly here in December following Brad’s “War column”. I can’t seem to retrieve that now, but I released a few rants at the time. 18,000 Iraqis died so far this year in a war that did not have to happen. We are sending another group from here which left this weekend. One of my nurses was called up again after having served 14 months last year. She can barely speak of the horrors. A close family friend, who looks all of twelve, went to Anbar province as a medic and had an emotional breakdown due to PTSD. All for an effort which will bring us more harm in the future-guaranteed. We can’t face the humiliation to end it sooner rather than later.
We are the worlds only superpower and our actions affect every person on the planet. We have the most powerful military in history so that we don’t have fight these useless petty battles. This isn’t worth a single American life. Someone once said that “if what America represents to the world is leadership in a commonwealth of equals, then our our friends will be legion. If what we represent is empire, then it is our enemies who will be legion.” We need to be seen by the world as deserving of our exalted status on this planet, and in this dark period of our history, I am afraid we do not.
99% of Iraqis killed this year were:
* victims of Islamic terrorists
* Islamic terrorists
100% of the fault was Islamic terrorists.
Jim, you are disregarding that Saddam ran off the inspectors and even while they were there he imposed illegal restrictions on them. Lastly, it has been confirmed that these expert UN inspectors walked right past WMD and couldnt find them. So, what good were they anyway? So in my example above, there are no inspectors for you to rely on. So you havent answered yet.
Dave, you have got to be kidding. You don’t transform anybody by force. You can transport them into eternity, but that is obviously not the same thing. If Christians in this country are thinking that we are fighting a “Christian” battle with bombs, then we are in a bad way. And I urge you not to evaluate Muslims just on the basis of the Qur’an and the Hadith. That is not adequate. They are people, just like us. And historically, they have behaved better than many who call themselves Christians.
Dave, I am not a Saddam apologist, but I will apologize for beating a dead horse-this may receive the inaugural death sentence, but here goes. I understand that the situation in 2001 with Saddam was not sustainable. We were severely punishing the people of Iraq with sanctions and we had to confirm that he had disarmed and was not a threat to the world community. It was a huge victory to force him to re-admit the inspectors and cooperate-but he was cooperating. It is clear that while we said “he must cooperate and disarm”,we had already replaced disarmament (UN Res 1441?) with regime change and occupation which the UN had not signed on to, and which Blair admitted “has no basis in international law”. Therefore WMD and imminent threat had to be the storyline and they grossly overplayed their hand. Everything that was presented was either flagrant exaggerrations, selective intel cherry picking, or in many cases lies, but the intelligence was “shaped to fit the policy”. The aluminum tubes, uranium from Niger, drones which could strike the US, mobile chemical weapons labs, anthrax, stockpiles of “nookular weapons, chemistry weapons, and biodegradable weapons” (a little levity), the “most dangerous the world has ever seen”, have all been proven to be fairy tales. Not suprisingly, most of the intel came from a psychotic prisoner we tortured.
The connections to al Qaeda were acording to the British “frankly unconvincing” (I can hear Lee typing madly about an Atta/Iraqi meeting in Prague). We had leverage with Saddam which increased exponentially as he came to realize that we were going to invade and he apparently offerred to negotiate, including a brief mention of abdication and exile (UAE refused). I know its a fantasy, but can you imagine the hero that Bush would have been to the world if he had taken down Saddam without a shot being fired. We could have kept our sites on al Qaeda and maybe even used Afhanistan as the transformative nation on the hill intoxicating the region with democracy, instead of world-class opium. But instead we destroyed arguably the nation that I believe ranked 24th for “harboring terrorists/cells” behind the US and Britain, and which had an openly hostile approach to Islamic fundamentalism and jihad. The only terrorist we could name in Iraq pre-war was Zarqawi and he was wanted by Saddam. The % of foreign fighters in Iraq now, as most of us know, is near the single digits. These Iraqis that are being slain are all on our tab, whether we like or not-we lit the cauldron and will be blamed. They were not terrorists before but are now, and are inspirational to all the alienated angry Muslims throughout every nation in the world. Before we capture Osama “dead or alive”, I do think it is helpful, and not un-American, to review his ramblings concerning why he lives in a cave and will likely die a martyr serving jihad vs the Great Satan:
“God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed — when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.
“If the American government is serious about avoiding explosions inside the U.S., then let it stop provoking the feelings of 1,250 million Muslims.”
Certainly his day of reckoning will come but I am afraid it will have the same impact as the death of Zarqawi and the assasination of Nasrallahs predecessor-the job won’t remain vacant for long. We need a peace settlement in the ME to defuse the anger and resentment , and ultimately as Osama said, “Stop killing Muslims”.
Herb, we certainly aren’t fighting an atheist war against Islamo-fascism, so I hope we are doing it based on Judeo-Christian principles. As I posted on another thread, if as Christians we truly love the worst of the worst Muslims, then we have a duty of faith to change them. Ignoring them would be against God’s law. God doesn’t want anyone in a cult or in bondage and the people who are Moslem by no choice of their own are enslaved in this repressive, violent, anti-progress, anti-science cult. It is high time the world steps up to fix what is wrong.
In other words, Dave:
“Take up the White Man’s burden —
Send forth the best ye breed —
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild —
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.”
–Rudyard Kipling
But of course, it’s hard to reconcile that philosophy with the fact that the places which hold to such philosophies most strongly (like South Carolina) are impoverished backwaters with miserable, ignorant, shiftless populations dependent on handouts.
Instead of taking up the “White Man’s Burden” as you suggest, maybe we could just assume that Muslims are humans like us and deal with them in honorable ways. Especially since your way (attempting to pick fights with every Muslim country) doesn’t seem to be working out all that well.
Muslims who do not practice Jihad and commit acts of terrorism are just like us. And people like that, like those risking their lives to start up the Iraqi government, deserve respect and even honor. I can separate the two. By the way, Kipling also wrote – “You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.” about the Indian water boy, but he was Hindu.
Force is the only way you can transform many people. You lock them up or kill them, after they try to use deadly force on innocent people, and hopefully before they do it again.