Like water diluting Western journalism's standard poison, London Times' writer, Gerard Baker offers, The first step towards defeating the terrorists: stop blaming ourselves...
The Anchoress has a soberingly long list of radical and dangerous provocation and... ultimately finite tolerance on the part of the West.... it just won’t do to claim it’s all about bad US foreign policy. It is repetitive but necessary to point out that we didn’t start this war when we invaded Iraq. The attacks on 9/11 were planned not only before we invaded, but during a time when the US was expending extraordinary effort to try to forge a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
And if our actions have radicalised the jihadists we should remember that they are animated at least as much by our ridding Afghanistan of their spiritual brethren, the Taleban, as they are by whatever crimes the US may have committed in Baghdad...
Events such as yesterday’s near-miss should remind us that September 11, 2001, gave birth to a radical and dangerous new world. It required the US — an imperfect country to be sure, but the only one with the power and the will to defend the basic freedoms we too easily take for granted — with its allies to remake the international system. It provided a terrifying harbinger of much larger atrocities to come, when terrorists and their state supporters get hold of weapons with which they can kill millions, not thousands. This new enemy is not like old enemies. It is fundamentalist and suicidal and apocalyptic...
Concluding by addressing the 'turpentine' crowd, Baker, nevertheless offers a nourishing degree of criticism, flavored with rational assessments and sound judgment as he concludes that the War against Islamic Fascism both is and is not about Iraq...
I will grant you that the Iraq war has been characterised, in conception and execution, by blunder after blunder. And it is certainly possible that, in their failures there, the US and Britain have made the world more unstable, not less. But we should not, in our frustration, confuse the real enemies here. We should not mistake the unlooked-for dangers caused by blunders and arrogance in Washington for the targeted threats posed by nihilism and hatred in much of the Middle East, and in some of our own cities.
Yesterday provided us with yet another glimpse of the awful reality of our long war and associated miseries. We must be very careful not to ascribe their creation to our own errors.
Yet, while it is refreshing to see that some contributors to Western media are finally starting to 'get it,' the general state of reaction on the Left to these latest revelations, has gone beyond tasting the spirits of self-flagellation. No, they are now chugging the poison of outright denial and conspiracy. With redirected furvor stemming from recent political success, the nutroots are surging forth to quickly forge the narrative on these latest events, by lacing them with scepticism, doubt, confusion. The story does not serve their ends and therefore cannot be allowed to be heard.
Facts and fears be damned, its an Orwelian preview of what will come with them in charge of the information society. Real threats will be ignored, while politically expedient enemies invented as means to their ends. It is the way the fringe Left thinks, because it is what the fringe Left would do given the slightest opportunity?
8 comments:
To those who wish to use the mistakes of the Iraq campaign as a means to unseat the president: every war we have ever fought has been chock-full of mistakes and blunders. Such setbacks are not an indicator of the basic morality of the effort - they are indicators of (in the current context) anal-retentive scrutiny by political opportunists who think they know better than those managing the operations.
I say it again and again and again and again, with increasing incredulity and morosity - many more innocent people are going to die before we begin to address islamic militancy with the intensity, determination and (sadly) ferocity that will be necessary to defeat it. Moderate Muslims are not helping, and Leftists are actively impeding, our ability to defeat them.
What if the fringe left came into control of this total information society? Would neo-conservative blogs like this be tolerated?
You wouldn't assume that they are all wimpy tree hugging hippies that would invite you over to work out your differences in a sweat lodge over chai tea? Fear the left and the(ir) puppet masters. They are as intollerant as the right, they just claim thier intollerance is justified by the "high moral ground" wherever and whatever that is.
Neo-Conservative blogs like ours? Give it up already. What does that mean, anyway? Personally I'm an Objectivist. Dueler and Mike can vouch for themselves, but why bother. NeoCon is simply the new 'Nazi' in the minds of the others, deloyed to avoid the curse of Godwin. Its nothing more than another means of pasting labels like n*&ger, sp&c, k@ke... its meant to marginalize without actually having to engage them intellectually or philosophically.
And by no means do I underestimate the horrors contained within the sensibilities of the Left. Intolerant as the right? Funny. the so-called 'Right' is merely intolerant of purposelessness. The so-called 'Left', the fundamentally anti-intellectual, are intolerant of human existence altogether.
Mr. Atos,
Although unrelated to this thread,
I would honestly like to see your thoughts on the current threats to personal property in this country.
As an objectivist, you might believe in the rights to personal property. What are your feelings regarding the recent supreme court rulings against private property and the governments ability to claim imminent domain to take and sell the property to private groups. The excuse for the seizures are that the private interest can generate greater tax revenues on said properties. Also the comming imminent domain rulings for states like Texas and others with these toll corridors springing up that are really private roads with Spanish companies and other individuals being the ones that get the profit? You may argue that there will be ranchers and farmers that benefit from proximity of their land to the roads and ability to sell or lease at a higher price.
But they are claiming a 10 mile swath of land on each side of the roads so they will profit from selling the seized land too.
Thanks for considering the topic,
That is a very good question, Anon. (VOR or a new Anon?) My initial answer to it would be that there is no difference between property rights and individual liberty. Man can only be genuinely free if he has the ability to own, without threat, the land on which he stands... or Woman, of course. Taxation, Regulation, Confiscation are all direct assaults to individual sovereignty. The rule of the common is a myth created to undermine liberty by despotic whim. 'Collective' is merely the progressive term for 'peasant.'
That being said, the subject itself is far more fascinating and complex to be explored in comments. It will require a post or two. And I think I have something in mind.
Stand by, and watch for it, soon.
And thank you for your thoughtful inquiry.
Neo-con? How about ...moderate conservative realist. I don't live in the make believe world of neo-libs or the fire and brimstone world of far right religious conservatives.
I think governments (state, local, fed, dem, republican) tend to grow as a result of indirect vote buying via PORK, as a result I believe they tend to tax too much, and as a by-product... undemocratically redistribute wealth to underachievers and slackers.
I am not for abortion, but I am not about to intercede to prevent someone who thinks that is what they need to do. I would vote to repeal most abortion opportunities, but I won't throw myself off the bridge if the laws in this country do not change.
I am a warrior by trade, but don't advocate the use of arms on whims ...including launching dozens of cruise missiles into the desert to pretend we have accomplished something. There are bad people in this world that only death will mitigate their threat to civil society.
I believe, without waving a flag in anyone's face, that this country is a beacon for the free world, and while we may at times be the 700 lb gorilla in the room, our opportunities, our intentions, and our form of government far exceed those of the rest of the world...I am unashamedly an American patriot...and proud to say it.
If all, or any, of this makes me a neo-con...then I guess I am, but it doesn't hurt too much coming from a gutless weasel who comments behind an anon identity.
Thanks for prompting me to clear that up. MM
Uh o.k., Thanks for clearing that up.
-another gutless weasel who comments behind an anon identity.
If the skew fits, bear it!
Post a Comment