Posts
And these are little reminders of that fact.
We were just having a discussion at Blackfive not many days ago about "escalation of war". A telling point, that continues to be missed by the "peace at all cost" folks is that we are not the only ones who can escalate war.
Nor is the simplistic phrase, "Fight them there so we don't fight them here" interpreted exactly as it should be. I am sure that there will be many outraged cries, once again, that Iraq has created terrorists who are coming back to England, or Europe or the United States. Many will point out that this phrase is false. The problem is that this simplistic slogan does not lend to the reality.
We must fight them there because that is where terrorism has started (to wit, in the Middle East), where it is prevalent and where it must die in order for our nation and others to be safe. There is nothing we can "fight" here or do here that ends the Islamist Salafist ideology. Aside from capitulate to their demands and some how "change" our foreign policy. Other than that, there is no "fighting" them here, in the sense that they can be defeated on our shores.
But, we are at war. Which means that our land, our nation, can be and probably will be attacked again.
Friday, June 29, 2007
We Are At War
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
um, what is wrong with capitulating to their demands and changing our foreign policy? Is it simply pride that stops us?
No, Paul, it is not only pride that stops us.
The very first problem is that the request came with a giant attack on our country on 9/11. You do not kill 3000 of our citizens and demand our surrender without a fight.
We at least need to come from a position of power so that you do not give up everything. Particularly, as the final demands of those we fight result in the servitude of many nations, far beyond the confines of the middle east.
You should try reading their manifestos once in awhile or watching the news about Islamist expansion around the world so that you understand their actual goals beyond "stop supporting Israel against the Palestinians" and "get out of the middle east".
It is interesting how many people do not want to believe that these final goals are "realistic" or actually expected to be achieved by the enemy. You apparently do not equate a willingness to blow themselves up and kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, with a deadly intent to reach all the set goals.
I must ask at this time, why do you and folks like you refuse to acknowledge these goals of the enemy and their intent to carry them out? Was 9/11 not enough proof? Are you so set on negotiating the end of the war that you believe that you can rationalize with them and come to an agreement with such people? Is this a sign of overweening pride that you believe that we can do so from the position of a supplicant and still have enough political, economic clout to enforce the terms of any such agreement? And who, exactly, would sign the final agreement? Who would decide that we have "changed enough" or done enough to stop such a tide or elusive enemy?
What will you do when you have done what you believe to satisfy any such basic demands and this shadowy enemy says that it is not enough? Will you give more? Where is the line? What if he says it is not enough and continues to attack us? Are you willing to fight then?
How many must die, how much must we give, how many people must be subjected to their final tyranny to satisfy their demands? When will you believe we have given enough?
that is the problem with such enemies and such questions as "pride". By their very nature and make up, any one or more organizations can insist that the appropriate measures and requirements have not been met. There is a reason that people compare these folks to Nazi Germany because no action satisfied their demands and they continued to find reasons why they could not be satisfied and to expand their actions.
Secondly, I do not believe you can even capitulate to one or two demands without this enemy taking it as a sign of weakness that they can exploit for future expansion or completion of their over all mission.
Third, I can say with some confidence, that, should we simply capitulate to foreign policy demands (including a withdrawal of support and or military protection) of countries and areas means that our existence is in danger or is in the hands of such people who I do not trust, as you apparently do, to be the benevolent benefactors who would not use such power to damage or destroy this nation and many others that they feel are a danger to them.
That includes, not only the control of natural energy resources such as oil and gas, but routes through which food, clothing and technology are routinely shipped to our nation , Europe, South America and nations around the world.
Are you willing to give that to them, the economic and material security of the world (not just the US) in order to satisfy some nebulous nefarious demands that we "change our foreign policy"? Are you so full of pride that you believe we would not be affected by such things? Maybe you think we should pay some penance by returning to 1929 and the great depression for our overweening and longest run posterity known to any nation? Like children we have had the ball too long and should be willing to share it with others, but since we're not we should be punished?
We are a danger to them. If you give them any part or parcel, we will continue to be attacked and in danger.
This includes, not just a military danger, but a danger to their culture and society that is imperiled in their view by the very thought that man is free to make his own decisions and worship God as he chooses.
As you must be aware, their ideas on God and worship include the idea that non-muslims or apostates can be subjugated and killed. If you do not attend weekly worship you can be whipped, beaten or killed. If you do not wear a beard of the appropriate length or have it cut or trimmed, you can be beaten or killed. If you do not wear a hijab or abbaya, if any part of you that is deemed improper shows and you are a woman or man, you can be beaten or killed.
These are realities. This is life under the taliban and this is life of many iraqi citizens who have had such militants invade their areas and take control. Many of these people do worship and do follow the tenets of Islam, but, for the Islamists of AQ and such, they are still not Muslim enough. even the idea that certain fruits and vegetables are mixed in a basket or on a hucksters stand can result in punishment.
Is this the tender mercies that you are willing to abandon hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, too in order to "what?" exactly? Stop some nebulous war that we do not fully control the escalation or outcome of?
Maybe you believe that most muslims actually want to live that way? Whose pride now is interfering with their rational self?
What of the message from Zawahiri to Zarqawi that urged him to expand to the "levant" which includes Lebanon, parts of Syria, Palestine, Israel and the Sinai? Lebanese are relatively western and cosmopolitan. should we abandon them to such people to be attacked, punished and murdered for their lack of "Islamness"? And do you not understand that Fatah al Islam that Lebanon has been fighting is the manifestation of that proposed expansion?
Whose "pride" are we supposed to swallow first? Who shall we surrender first to them? Where will it end? At what line are you willing to say "no more"? And, once you have decided this, will you be in a position to actually do something, having swallowed so much "pride"?
Your question is interesting and simplistic. Would that all things should have such a simple answer. But it hides or ignores the real dangers and complexities of the situation. It hides the real costs of such an answer.
My question to you is, "Is the value that you place on these peoples and the ideas so low that you are willing to swallow your pride intact or in part in order to save yourself"? And for what will you have saved yourself having given it all away?
Hmmm, how do you fight an ideology? Did that work for the Brits during our revolutionary war? They had a superior fighting force and technology. How did that work out for them? Did it work for the French in Vietnam? Or how did we do there? Same set-up, different names in the punchline. How has every occupying force in the history of Afghanistan fared in combating a set ideology of indigenous people done? I forget. Are the Russians still there? Well, the Taliban kicked them out with a little help from us.
Finally, Christianity and Judaism both have faced some pretty harsh campaigns to be stamped out over the years. Those ideologies seem to still be flourishing. But you think that a country with the greatest deficit in its history, a hobbled economy that is fighting wars on now, three fronts is going to be able to stomp out an ideology?
Your optimism in the face of reality makes you a true hero to me. I mean, wow. You're the kin do guy who bets n the Cubs every game.
Post a Comment