Major Mike
It has occurred to me over the past couple of weeks, with the Middle East and Afghanistan in turmoil, because of the likes of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi Insurgents, Hamas and Hezbollah; that we now live in a world where governments, borders, diplomatic protocols, and indeed, civilizations are on the brink of becoming extinct and obsolete.
These groups, some quasi-governmental entities, (Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah), others simply terror organizations (AQ, and the AQ led Iraqi insurgents) are on the verge of collapsing the existing, and long recognized, international conventions of government, and governmental interactions. Operating outside the frameworks of established political systems, these groups are capable of destroying the very essence of our existing, global, civilization.
While they are attacking with conventional and non-traditional martial weapons, they are also attacking on many asymmetrical fronts, many of which we are either slow to recognize, or refusing to acknowledge.
Their asymmetric attacks…IEDs, kidnappings, border incursions, unguided rocket attacks, Gitmo prison suicides, 24/7 MSM windfarm manipulation, are designed to create a perpetual din of violence that we soon become numb to, and are expected to submit to out into the future.
All the while, they receive unsolicited and unwitting help in their messaging by a blinded and prejudiced free press that has let its loathing of Western culture, the culture that gave it birth, create a dire and slanted world view that leaves many apathetic and hopeless. The MSM, with their crass empathies for murderous nationalists and terror mongers, is fueling these anarchistic endeavors through publicity, supportive messaging and storytelling, tacit encouragement, and continual anti-government campaigning.
Their first target is the erosion of institutional and governmental confidence worldwide. They are not seeking to defeat the US in battle. They are not seeking to defeat Israel in battle. They are seeking the destruction of our social, economic, and governmental structures through the simple erosion of public confidence over time. In essence, they are trying to drive the international community into an international malaise, similar to the one that the US experienced after the Vietnam War. And they will leverage this motive vacuum as an opportunity for cultural imposition and theocratic domination. And when successful, they will spiral the current civilized world into chaos, confusion, and repressive dominance that will eventually ruin modern Western society.
They have already changed the government in Spain. They have infiltrated the fledgling democracy in Lebanon and pulled it into a devastating war. They have won control of the Palestinian government, and nearly immediately engaged Israel in a war. Their goal is not victory, it is anarchy. And anarchy is their entry into power. Afghanistan the first time around. Somalia in its current state of affairs.
We are deep into this erosion of confidence and already on the path to ruin.
Governments in Spain, France, Pakistan, Great Britain, Iraq, Afghanistan, and India have been rocked by devastating attacks to their populations. Attacks, not designed to defeat governmental armies, but attacks simply designed to erode confidence in governmental abilities. Not only do these attacks erode the confidence in governments, but they plant the seeds of populous doubt, and lay the foundations of anarchy.
The US is on the verge of Congressional turnover simply due to unmanageable and chaotic nature of the world beyond our borders. The wide swings of our government in flux, raise questions and infuse doubt. Our last episodic experience of longstanding doubt, coupled with passive governmental action, resulted in anarchy in the Middle East, and the extension of a populous malaise that had been born from the anarchy of the late sixties and early seventies.
Without resolute reaffirmation of their founding and guiding principles, Western governments will allow themselves to become weaker and weaker against more angular and asymmetric attacks. These attacks will focus on our philosophical foundations as well as our physical structures. Each attack will accelerate the erosion in governmental confidence, and each will increase the doubt that modern governments are capable of fighting such entities. Each level of doubt brings a higher and higher potential for violent anarchy and governmental failure. All conditions that the Islamofascists desire to create.
International institutions fare no better. The UN has undermined itself with its corruption, its hopelessly mangled governing structure, and its feckless and biased application of its hollow admonishments and pointless resolutions. Their “enforcement” powers, always weak, have been further emasculated by manipulative governments (and quasi-governments) who have called their bluff at every turn.
The UN is unable to secure the cooperation of these entities simply because these groups have no desire to cooperate. They use the UN as a stage to voice their grievances, but do little to try to assimilate into global protocols. Their goal is not to assimilate, but to annihilate.
“It is the economy stupid.” Our economy is a prime angular target for the Islamofascists…it must be defended.
Economically our markets are floundering under the combined weight of high energy prices and the uncertainties of war. Global economies are on hold, as the collective breath of the world is held, while it eyes the combat in the Middle East, a combat generated by Israel’s simple quest for a lasting peace.
The world’s vulnerability in the modern globally inter-twined, multi-national market economy cannot be overstated. Economic devastation, driven by terror induced uncertainties is the quickest way to create a global vulnerability to anarchy. Economic downturns have always created opportunities for anarchy, and today will be no different. We must be quick to insulate ourselves from this vulnerability, or we will be subject to a rapid onset of chaos, unseen since the Great Depression.
If the world fails to act to thwart the onslaught against its institutions, boundaries, and governing principles, it will soon find itself in an era of chaos, unmatched since the Middle Ages. The potential for a full collapse of international structure is real. The peaceful decent into global depression in the 1930s was driven by modestly out of control economic forces. Imagine the global impact of a depression fueled by malaise, apathy, terror, and anarchy.
We are on the precipice of a defeat much larger than many can envision, and the only way to success lies in resolute action and confident strides towards total victory. All else welcomes defeat and despair.
32 comments:
to defeat the jihadomaniacs we must defeat the left.
and that means the dems.
if we don't, then they will do to the israelis and the iraqis and the afghanis what they did to the south vietnames and the contras: abandon them.
Cogent. I am fearful that your posting will not garner the attention it deserves. Until the "press" gets on our side and starts printing the truth, the majority of people are just going to sit on the sidelines.
Well said.
The axis of ignorance (Dowd, Herbert, and Rich) are three of the biggest offenders. Imagine the difference had the New York Times populated its op-ed pages with an equal mix of realists/conservatives.
The entire history of our involvement in the Middle East may have been altogether different had the media been on the side of America.
Until the "press" gets on our side and starts printing the truth, the majority of people are just going to sit on the sidelines.
No offense but that's horseshit. Until our president gets out there and starts talking about the war on a regular basis, until he brings his case to the American people and hammers it home relentlessly, the majority will not support this war. We will not win without the support of the nation and we will not win by blaming the media.
I think the analysis is solid, and I'd just like to add some points.
The bad news:
1. It seems that the isolated attacks in the west and the global rhetoric of the anarchists have stressed our always messy democratic systems and processes, particularly the left-constructed intellectual and social structures of 'openness' and 'tolerance'.
2. It also appears that our material affluence, and our desire that we not let anything get in the way of enjoying our affluence, is distracting us from being able to rouse ourselves sufficiently.
3. We seem to be suffering through a huge bout of collective pride (in the bad sense of the word) that is making it more important for each of us to win our arguments, political points, public offices, party dominance, etc. than it is that we pull together to defeat the enemies. You can't help but get the feeling that a lot of people would much rather that Iraq fail so they can win back the WH or the Senate. That competitive motive - the prideful motive of "me over you whatever the cost" - is the exact and central defect that brings down nations.
But perhaps there are good things we could consider:
1. Democracies are very messy things, and lurch along in very unpredictable ways. The Communist Soviet's could never figure out how or why it was that we didn't just fall over, given the amount of internal arguing and conflict that they saw. They never understood our system. Likewise, it is my belief that our current enemies don't understand our system either. Coming from dictatorships and strong men systems, they see our messy system as a weakness, but they miss the underlying monitoring and filtering that the average Joe is doing behind the scenes. Not being from the west, the only thing our current enemy is able to see is our media show, which we all have learned to reprocess, filter, augment, and adjust. What they can't see, and what I believe they are failing to account for, is how the public in the US gets it right pretty much most of the time, and how we are collectively able to move forward in our understanding of the challenges we face. Clearly we are the most adaptive society in the world, and you don't need to go any farther than 9/11 to see the evidence of that. We adapted before they were even able to get the first set of attacks completed. We are and will continue to adapt at a pace that will challenge them in many respects.
2. There are a lot of blowhard politicians in Washington DC, and they are the ones that appear on CNN International, but there are even more really solid people that live all around me, and I am sure around you too. That is our real strength, and is likely hidden from our enemies. I don't think they have a clue what our society is like at the town and city level, and overestimate our solid core.
3. Even if the Democrats win this November, they will be forced by the steady guiding hand of the populace to move to the center. If they take the house, for example, they may perhaps tie us all up in endless hearings on scandal fishing expeditions. But even then we need to remember Oliver North, and that the house and Senate can put on the show, but can not always predict or control how their show is received by the public. Trust the public to express dissatisfaction if the house is looking out the rear window at some 2004 question when we all see an explosive laden truck coming towards us out the windshield.
I propose that we all need to tone down the rhetoric a tone. I'd say that the Right in the US can help matters by cutting down on their own invective, superiority, and pride. Then we need to initiate and foster groups of people that are seriously looking at our current problems and are willing to work together to solve them. To do this, we need to all take input from any and all sides to craft the best solutions. I’m pretty confident when I say that the answers we need are composites of ideas from the right and the left – no party has all the answers. The line between good and evil does not run between our two political parties. We know how to work together - we do it in our jobs every day, running the worlds most successful companies. We just need to decide to do it on this most pressing problem.
On a positive note:
Remember, we good guys aren't the only ones having problems...
The Islamofascist must remember:
1. We invaded a country expected to have and use WMD.
2. We have not left said country
3. There are American forces, American allies, and other 'belligerent' forces on all borders of Iran and Syria.
4. NATO is getting more involved
5. In September Iran goes on fuel rations.
Also note that the infrastructure of the Left is coming under scrutiny – even by the Left. Every day the fail a little bit more. The question is – can we outlast their failures. And, my answer is yes. A good strong President will be running the show for more than two years still.
Would you want to be in the position of having to outwait him?
Right now the ‘Axis of Evil’ is attempting a surge. They have to. Time is not on their side. They will fail. They are not strong enough yet.
Right now the Left is attempting a surge. They have to. Time is not on their side. They will fail. People are just starting to pay attention to them again.
I am confident we will win this thing. More so every day. More so with Israel forcing Hezbollah’s hand – thereby denying Hezbollah the role of a blocking force in the big game. On the other hand, my concern is that we will become a one-party state that might be forced to destroy a culture. Realistically, that violence should be tagged on the Moronic Left – much like the violence of World War II should be pinned on the Isolationist Right. Life ain’t necessarily fair though.
Sorry, post above should have said that our enemies underestimate (nor overestimate) our solid core.
Anonymous,
Concur with 90% of your post - as should be obvious by my bloviating post...
However, the Left side of the spectrum has had NOTHING of value to state the past six years. For the most part, their opinions are worthless pap. I don't think we should waste the time required to politely listen to them.
It wasn't so long ago that I would never have written the above harsh paragraph...
By the way, has anyone heard of a Abu Graib Republican? How about a 9/11 Democrat? It will probably become apparent this year that the 9/11 Democrats are now Center Right Republicans. Like Yellow Dog Democrats. How many of them vote Democrat now?
I'm sorry, Tim, but the problem is that Dubya can't speak out on his own behalf and the nation's interests because he is incurably inarticulate and while the "ah shucks" plainspoken act may be cute in peacetime, the world we live in now demands a clear articulation of what the stakes are and victory is crucial.
If Dubya was able to speak coherently, the Treason Media (as I call them) wouldn't be able to casually promulgate whatever meme they wish to at will. A well-told lie will always trump a badly-told truth and as we watch Hezbollah stage massacres to paint Israel and America as evil killers of innocent children, where are we getting the real story? From the White House and the Treason Media? Hell, no!!! From the conservative Blogosphere. The very fact that people are panting for a Newt Gingrich to run is solely due to the fact that he can think and speak a complete paragraph and he still resembles the values that got the Stupid Party into power in the first place, that they've since discarded.
As MC 900 Foot Jesus said, "The truth is out of style," and until someone in the Administration realizes that pale rhetoric and feckless responses to treasonous leaks and unsecured borders are the wrong way to go, the Left will be able to regain power on the basis of voter disgust and the idea that, "Hey, how much worse could they be?"
Proportionality Test: Who is more anti-Semitic? The terrorists who've lobbed hundreds of missiles into civilian areas of Israel or Mel Gibson? The fact that most of the general population of ignorant herd animals think the latter is disheartening, to say the least.
Perserverance was the key to victory in the last World War. It was an intense effort on the part of the willing to stand firm in their resolve. I submit to you, that we are allowing both of the enemies of civilization to prevail. I repeat, WE ON THE RIGHT ARE ALLOWING THE ENEMIES OF CIVILIZATION TO PREVAIL.
It is no surprise that the Islamic Nazis are monsters. And should come as no surprise to any objective observer that those on the Left are villains and their Democrat surrogates scoundrels. And it is certainly no mystery where the media allegiances lie. We know all of this. Their only collective strategy for political victory is simply to suffocate us... to suffocate what is right... to suffocate everything and anyone not them. And their allies at the moment are the Islamic Nazi's - the enemy of their enemy. They have no plan for strategic victory, just political superiority. And they will surely get us all killed.
Yet like all things evil, the Left and its surrogates have no power but for that which we provide. And oh how we are providing it now. Look how we believe their rot... their polls, their pre-election analyses. We have fallen for the myth that the Democrat will prevail in November. Hogwash! Americans are not stupid and never have been. We criticize the President, his Cabinet, the Republicans, and one another for a variety of petty procedural disagreements. George Will has become an ass. But, only because he's shoved his own head so far between his legs that one can no longer tell which side of him is up. Yet as much has he's gone stupid, better Men like Hitchens have proven their salt. And that is something to celebrate. Because this struggle is not about politics and personalities. Its about the superiority of human virtue and the survival of civilization. And frankly there is simply no longer room on this world for the tolerance of evil. As we all know, the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And the best way for good men to do nothing, is for them to spend all of their energies weeping, bitching and bickering.
I say, reject the messaging of the Left and the narrative of the media. And know there is no way in Hell or on Earth that a majority of Americans will submit power to the abject idiocy of the Democrat party. What's more, work to that end. We have three full months.
Don't suffocate. Stand, fight and perservere!! Good men and woman in IOraq and Israel are dying for you. The least you can do is work your arses off to ensure their strong leadership at home.
Great post, Mike! You remind us what this fight is about. No its up to us to fight.
Mr. Atos,
ElectionProjection.com listed a net loss of 5 Senate Seats and 7 House Seats.
What is important is that most were talking about losing 20 House seats last month.
Have you noted the Rasmussen polls?
I am not worried. And, I will fight...
The stupid left shot their wad. They are done with. And, nowadays I have to say: “Good Bye and Good Riddance”. I no longer want to hear your views.
So ends the "Blogger Blues" MM wrote about. I kindof sense a resurgence, eh...
Boghie,
I agree that the left has nothing – no compelling story, no ideas, and no plan.
This is how I read it. When we saw and heard the World Trade Centers crash, we also saw and heard the crash of the left’s formerly potent post 60s world view. It was truly all gone in one day.
Prior to 9/11, the left was busy operating under their elaborate social and intellectual paradigm which carefully specified what things were good and what things were evil. In my view, this world view was a fabrication of pieces that included:
1. Marxism and post-colonialism theory (struggling workers and poor including third world poor are good, businessmen and capitalists are bad),
2. Post-colonialism theory (third world-ers are good and authentic, former colonizers or other hegemonic world powers are bad),
3. Feminist theory (women are good, men are bad),
4. liberation theory (total and absolute personal freedom is good, social moral constraints are bad)
These were all carefully protected by a thick outer layer of postmodern value relativism and vigorously enforced by an elitist thought police using ridicule and social ostracizing.
Then came 9/11 and this world view was, in that one event, demonstrated to be absolutely false, in plain sight of the country. The left was totally unable to describe or account for the motives of the perpetrators. (Recall how the New Yorkers instinctively knew the sham of the left’s views as demonstrated by the working class in NYC booing Hillary off stage a few days after 9/11) Still, the left reflexively tried to say that the hijackers must have been driven by their low economic status. The problem with that was that they were well funded by oil money. They would have liked to say the terrorists were driven by the oppression of being from former colonies – and this one holds a tiny bit of water. But, again, it is hard to feel sorry for countries that are sitting on the worlds oil reserves. Because the left denies the existence of (most) absolute evil, they always look to ‘environment’ to understand and account for someone ‘acting out’. It is one of their favorite things to do – to show a compassionate face to a social offender; to take them into the fold and tell them that they, the left, understands. Yet here again the left is internally conflicted by the fact that the terrorists (a) don’t believe in gender equality, and (b) don’t agree with loose sexual morals and homosexuality. Thus, the left has been torn asunder. Every time the left attempts to re-circumscribe and recast the problem, it never is compelling. (A great example of this is Al Gore’s recent attempt to get us back to the former agenda of global warming, as if terrorism is all a manufactured distraction. Now that Israel and Hezbollah is fighting, who even cares or talks about global warming.) In summary, the left had told us for decades what was evil, but hadn’t accounted for, and still can’t account for the evil that every American saw on their TVs that morning on 9/11.
Constructing new world views is hard. Most people are incapable intellectually to accomplish such a task Most people do menial tasks defined by a world view that they adopted from someone else. Yet, what are people supposed to do when there isn’t a word view that governs what progress is and what meaning is? Thomas Kuhn’s classic book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes how, when a branch of science undergoes a seismic shift in paradigm, the former adherents of the paradigm spend the rest of their lives trying to prop it back up. Most are unable to accept the new paradigm. That the why, I believe, the left tries over and over to reconstruct the old world view and get back to normalcy.
I believe that this lack of a valid world view is the principal reason the left has become so harsh and critical. In the absence of a workable world view they have taken up the menial task of hating George Bush et. al. How sad. Even though they try to keep up the dream that their world view has any meaning, while chatting amongst themselves at their dinner parties in Manhattan, the only thing that the best and brightest of the left has to offer is that George Bush is stupid and evil. So what! Everyone already knows he isn’t Tony Blair, and we already know that he isn’t evil. We don’t need the left to try tell us that, we figured out our answers to those questions long ago. What we do need from the left is responsible problem-solving help. One party systems are bad business. They’re like having a prosecutor but no defense attorneys. Pretty soon the prosecution cases get more and more sloppy. We need a good constructive left to keep us from getting sloppy.
Perhaps we need to rethink this asymetrical warfare. If you read histories of war, the victor often traps the enemy into fighting the battle on grounds and at times predetermined by the victor. There are famous stories from Julius Ceasar of the timing of battles due to forced marches, or in the Bible of battles with the Sun in the eyes of the enemy, or our own battle with Britian in the revolutionary war where we used trees to hide behind or the night to launch battles.
Western armies excel in "conventional" war-- the Israelis famously defeated combined Arab forces in the six day war. Our enemies have learned from these defeats, and now fight guerilla wars, seeking to hide among civilians, kill our civilians, manipulate our media, and use increasing sophisticated and mobile weapons.
We need to rethink this war, and choose the ground of battle to our advantage. For example, it seems that increasingly sophisticated and smaller weapons (think portable missile launchers) favor insurgents. But wars have always included attackes on supply lines. In ancient and medieval times, sieges were a common tactic against walled cities.
We have overwhelming technology advantages. Battles in the past were decided on these kinds of advantages-- for example the devastation inflicted by the long bow by the English on the French. We need to rethink our current battle, and begin to choose the ground to our advantage.
If supplies to southern Lebanon were disrupted (the old siege approach) how long would the "civilian" population remain? What if the Israeli army planted IED's on all the major roads into southern lebanon? Is there any way to turn the tactics of the enemy against them? Could food deliveries be disrupted without the outcry for "humanitarian" aid? Could army units include video documentation, much as the police in this country now have cameras in many police cars? Instead or real TV with the police, think real TV with war coverage.
The enemy has an entrenched, very old tribalistic patriarchal society. Could this be exploited? In Japan, the Samurai's adherence to ancient weapons resulted in their extinction. Islamic fighters have updated their weapons, but not their social structures. Are there potential weaknesses here? Certainly there is the potential for a divide and conquer strategy, given the large number of factions. But I believe there are many more innovative approaches available to us and the Israelis that would play to our strengths.
Please don't confuse the terms "Conservative", "Christian", and "Republican". Lincoln Chafee, for example, seems only to fit one of those. Bush is a good man; but he seems to be okay with fighting terrorism and seems to be ignoring border security here at home (and I hope that's because he knows where the real threat is).
We need to defeat the same enemy that Abe Lincoln, Franklin Rooseveldt, and Ronald Reagan fought. It has many names and changes its face often; but it smells the same and wants the same prize. "Inthefaceofevil.com" sells a viseo all should watch at least once.
Choose your own side. "... as for me and my house, ..." (Joshus 24:15)
Mike:
Your basic central premise seemed to align exactly with what I was thinking yesterday, previous to me reading your post. Where we find ourselves is the dissolution of nation-states and the gradual rise of anarchy.
The "Global Economy" positied years ago and theoretically evidenced by *worldwide capitalism and freedom* has been supplanted by *ideology-based anarchy* in the breaking down of international borders. In this sense, terrorist organizations are now behaving like international corporations.
What I find particularly disturbing is that there is no worldwide concensus that militant ideological terrorism is a bad thing. The World Trade Center towers fell; instead of lamenting the loss of human life (which, in theory, *should* be a basis for worldwide concensus), many muslims around the world celebrated. The vast majority wouldn't necessarily have the commitment to those planes into the towers, but enough of them agreed with the motivations behind the terrorists that the carnage was acceptable because it furthered their socio-political ideal.
Our Western World's distrust of ourselves won't allow us to muster the organization and motivation to confront the gathering anarchy. In our quest for "inclusion" and "tolerance," even the United States has lost touch with what *should* be continuing to unite us - our original ideals quantified in the latter half of the 18th century.
On this note, though, Boghie also has a great point above: the danger of "a one-party state that might be forced to destroy a culture." If we are pushed far enough by militant islam, all of our liberty-loving bickering will suddenly become meaningless, and we will unite in destructive force of a horrific scale. I do not hasten the arrival of focused hostility - but what I fear more is the scale of destruction that will occur if we *don't* eliminate militant islam before it has a chance to realize the extent of its destructive potential.
Anon, nice litnay on the *what,* now how about filling a little of the details on the practical *hows.* You, as the Dems, find it easy to delineate what should be done, as if wishing it so, makes it so...each of element of your so-called plan, comes with its own wrinkles, obstacles, repercussions, dangers, victories and loses. Your *cake walk* vision is not remotely grounded in the real world. By following your Carteresque vision we would have only pushed AQ into Iraq to train, lost Israel as an ally, and made the Palistinians direct adversaries.
I suppose you should replace our entire governmental structure with your vast leadership and managerial experience. I am sure that woould do the trick.
And Anon...come to my house any time, we'll see who whines and for how long. I'll be waiting.
Try this for "grounded in the real world":
Egypt, once Israel's mortal enemy, has been at peace with Israel, since President Carter brought them together at Camp David - for nearly 3 decades now! A little Carteresque vision wouldn't hurt now.
Another Anon...for one simple reason...Egypt has taken a firm and dominate stance on Islamofascists, AND they have CHOSEN peace over war. Simple as that.
Do you need to be reminded of any other Carter successes...let's start with 25 years of fanatical Islamist extremists ruling in Iran...and , oh by the way, who with the help of the very Carteresque UN, may soon have nukes.
Next time bring evidence, not anecdotes.
Major, First of all don't insult me by automatically labeling me a Dem. See what I mean? I'm a registered independent, conservative through and through. Pat B. is my main man. I was
going to mention Carter's peace initiative with Jordan and Eygpt, but I see some else had the balls to at lease give credit where credit is due. And let's not forget who was at the helm during and at the immediate surrender of our adversaries in WWII - two Dems, FDR & Truman, who incidentally dropped the big one that ended it all. And Major, if a little name calling invokes such anger, maybe you should get on some meds. Your threats sound just like Dubya, who puts our lives at risk, by telling our enemies, "to bring it on" and "they want a war, they got a war". The man didn't even finish his National Guard duty, but sends decent, hard working Americans, who truly believe in thsi country and what it stands for, to fight for what Dubya "thinks is right", and for NO WMD'S. And if you REALLY want to carry your threat a little further, let me know and I'll have law enforcement show up at your house.
The most relevent conversations always include the phrase, blah, blah, blah… dont they?
And you’re really no Nelly, Mike!
Maybe a bit of a Nancy … sitting up there in that cushy cockpit, ya know.
As for Peace, Ananon! I submit that 'peace' is not merely the absense of violence... just as genius is not the absence of stupidity.
I'm sure the Israelis appreciate the "absence of violence" at their Southern flank as they fight the Hezbollah in the north.
What you seem to be missing here, another anon, is that the forces MajorMike is talking about, just now starting to bubble above the surface, are non-state entities, with motives that are far different from nation-states.
Nation-states are motivated to preserve themselves, either as a free socio/political/economic system (ie. US/EU) or preserve centralized power (i.e. North Korea). The non-state actors we're dealing with now don't particularly care to preserve themselves. As long as the will of Allah is done, they can be guaranteed an eternity in Paradise. So the world you cherish and in which you wish to create peace doesn't mean much to them.
The big wrinkle here is how the non-state Hezbollah is essentially a proxy of the nation-state of Iran. Iran is holding WAY too many cards right now. Rattle the cage of the evil West to boost your oil revenues and maintain your power so that you can continue to build your capacity to actually *destroy* the Jews and the West by summoning the Apocalypse.
We're dealing with crazies, here, another anon. And we didn't make them that way, either. People like Sayyed Qutb did. Crazies with weapons are very dangerous. The people you would like to make peace with are very likely to bring a suitcase nuke, in lieu of a pen, to the treaty-signing ceremony.
I would LOVE to believe that just being nice to these people will get them to be nice to us. But you don't have to look far to see what their real goal is. I will always seek to extend the hand of friendship and peace. But I will also be ready to defend myself against those that cannot be swayed from their desire to destroy me.
I'm sure they do, Ananon! Just as I'm sure the Egyptians appreciate that any aggressive move on their part would be met with near complete destruction. It may be a stalemate, but it certainly is not Peace. And the facilitator of that condition was not a man named Carter, but a Dam named Aswan.
Similarly, I would argue that I'm sure Iran appreciates, albeit in a different way, now being surrounded by the Army of the United States.
It is important now more than ever that we understand the meaning of the words and terms we toss about with ignorant abandon... like 'Peace', 'Tolerance', and 'Cease-Fire.'
Hey Major Mike, I owe you an apology.(for the name calling, not my POV) I've never been on your website before, didn't know who you were. Got two very good buddies of mine that are Seals and another buddy of mine in Afganistan, with Army Intell. I thought you were some right wing pundit writer without worldly experience to back it up. Next time I'll do my research before I speak.
Anon...what I find fascinating is that you resorted to name calling...for no reason I might add, then when I escalate the fight, one notch above your escalation, you run for the nearest skirt available. Nice. You're still welcome to visit my house.
To your point...FDR and Truman did exactly the right thing, but the current Dem party bears no resemblance to that party. THAT Dem party began to evaporate the day that Kennedy upped the ante in Vietnam by 15,200 troops, and LBJ had no clue what to do in his stead.
And still to my point...what exactly would YOU do? Not wide brush strokes about "find Bin Laden," "Slap the Palistinians." What? Drop nukes? Add 100k to the armed services? Raise taxes? Get more allies? And then exactly HOW?
And in case you missed my Egypt answer above, let's also don't forget that the King of Jordan was married to an American...I wonder how hard that was for Jimmy? Now what about his other massive failures with the truly difficult entities...zip, zero, net huge losses.
And that is the point with MMQBs like you...full of questions, short on answers.
To finish I'll quote another world leader...
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
Push away from you keyboard, put down your doughnut, and make a contribution. Until you do, keep your muttering to yourself...you're adding nothing to the conversation.
And you are still welcome to drop by anytime. MM
Mike, name calling for the reason that I thought you were just another media nut. And what would I do? I'd tell the Israeli's to end the 40 year occupation, I mean really, what happened to the "Road Map For Peace"? And not a little here and there. You can't honestly say that what's going on over there, to the tune of 70-100 people in Iraq being blown to bits everyday can be viewed as winning the hearts and minds. We have to be honest brokers -- first. Did you happen to catch Henry Kissinger on Charlie Rose last night? Go download the transcript. That's my point. And I don't eat donuts, sadly, I gave them up long ago. And I do make a contribution, it's called, obeying the law, caring for my family and paying my income tax. And what "skirts" were you referring to? Our law enforcement officials or my Seal buddies?
Anon...I'll go find the Charlie Rose transcripts, but even today, as brilliant as HK is...he does not bear the burden of command, so comment and critique is easy, and without repercussion. The laws of physics are apropos to politics...each and every action has a reaction.
The Jews should give up land they siezed after they were ganged up on by Syria, Egypt and Jordan? What would be the effect of that? Land for peace doesn't seem to have bought them a minute's peace since they have been ceding land back...it would only further collapse their cushions against the random attacks the have been experiencing for a full generation.
My cynicism in the motive of the Islamo-whatevers is what is holding me back in truly believing that we can broker anything...I sincerely believe, although I recognize my pessimisim, that we will only reach equilibrium through conficlt, and not through negotiation. Negotiation has proven to provide only tenuous and unstable periods of states less than war...not true peace.
I was referring to your law enforcement reference...I posted my previous comment prior to seeing your last comment.
Thanks for your explanation.
Anonymous,
You are a Buchanan man!!!
Buchanan brings to the table a number of years as the Speechwriter for President Nixon and a few years as the Communications Director for President Reagan.
Speechwriter
Communications Director
President Bush's Speechwriter is (or was, who knows) Michael Gerson. President Bush's Communications Director is Karen Hughes. I actually respect both - but how much do they bring to the table. Would that executive leadership make you want to vote for either in the 2008 Presidential election?
Secretary Kissinger does have gravitas.
President Carter is, and was, a fool. We are still paying for that little man's failures. His is a Presidency best forgotten. Imagine voting for him now. Can’t get my brain around that one, eh…
Additionally, I no longer want to talk with terrorists, autocrats, and louts. We have talked and bargained in good faith - only to have our efforts accepted in bad faith. Basically, I do not trust them. Not at all.
You are fighting the previous war. I am tired of losing. I am tired of getting goobered by some barbaric thugs. Did we spend decades talking to Al Capone? Bugsy Malone? We did spend a half decade working diligently with der Fuhrer.
Also, how big are the walk abouts regarding Israel and our activities in Iraq? Just asking... Can’t seem to smell the B.O. in Birkenstocks and burlap sacks. So 60’s. So wrong generation. So much the previous war.
There's plenty of blame to go around: At least Carter didn't cut and run like Reagan did after the tragic deaths of our Marines in Lebanon. That single act of presidentional cowardice empowered the terrorists more than anything.
The US army and the IDF are 3rd generation military forces.
The Iraq militias and Hezbollah are 4th generation military forces.
Recent asymmetrical warfare has a fabulous record against conventional armies... stalemates and victories. If you want to examine a victory of a western army against an entirely guerilla force, look at the 2nd Boer war. The force ratio necessary was roughly 15-20:1, and both counter guerilla and highly repressive methods were necessary to achieve the goals.
Internment camps and a scorched earth policy are not, however a viable tactic for either the US military or IDF.
You state that the basic reason for our failure, or potential failure in the future is a lack of confidence in our direction, fostered by the press.
To use an analogy, we're trying to kill stinging bugs with a sledgehammer. The enemies tactics have evolved in such a way, that they are in all practical effects, immune to our armies strengths, yet can exploit our weaknesses.
Do I think that the radical Islamic movement is good? Excusable?
Not in the least.
I'm not however drinking the Kool Aid, that you seem to want to.
Your premise for decrying criticism of our approach is that all that is necessary is time and staying power. Will this work in the current situation?
Not in Iraq. Iraq is moving towards civil war. There is an enexorable movement towards it, fueled by ethnic rivalries. Its not an Islamofaschist revolution happening in Iraq, or at least, not the majority of the conflict. Its a very plain and very old ethnic battle.
The Israel/Lebanon conflict is a little different. I do believe that time and pressure may have some bearing on the outcome, here... although I think the best outcome is a defacto draw. Israel is aware that they cannot oust Hezbollah... and they are unwilling to permanently occupy the country, thus giving Hezbollah room to breathe.
The marginal solution I see here is that Hezbollah be integrated into the Lebanese army and stationed to the north/east, and away from the Israeli border.
So. What to do with Islamofashism then? I'd make them irrelevant. I'd stop buying their oil, and stop sending them money and goods to arm, feed and equip their activities against the west.
The most sensible way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, would be to use a vast range of currently possible technologies, including lightweight materials in cars, ethanol fuels (which we can grow, or cheaply import in massive quantities from Brazil,) and using far more wind and solar power.
Car companies are already making baby steps in this direction, for largely PR reasons, but with a mixture of regulation and subsidy (switching from the completely illogical oil company subsidies we currently have) we could cut oil consumption massively.
After this I'd generate a concensus amongst the security council to use massive trade embargos rather than miltary force, as opposed to needing to invade a country.. which we've demonstrated is becoming highly counter productive.
Perhaps Ananon you are correct, Reagan cutting and running from Beirut did empower the butchers of Islam? Just as Clinton cutting and running from Somalia, made them euphoric with murderous rage.
So, we all agree, cutting and running from Iraq, would be a similarly stupid idea. Regardless, how you view Republicans, it is certain that the strategy of Democrats is the path to suicide... carrying your own analysis to its inevitable end.
Post a Comment