neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Obama does the Nixon thing in Afghanistan

Cliff May has a good article on this over at NRO today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270265/reading-ayman-al-zawahiri-s-mind-clifford-d-may

And a quote from Khomeini always hits the spot.

“ Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?…Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!” Ayatolla Khomeini after his return to Iran in 1979

Your take on the Thirty Years War is essentially correct. The War produced a series of treaties that helped establish rules for conduct between nation states. However, the utter savagery and devastation iof the war, much of it done in the name of God, forced people to rethink the idea of making war based on religious diffgerences. There were further small wars over religion for another two hundred years, but the path toward more religious tolerance was begun by the Thirty Years War.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
“The war also has a few more subtle consequences. The Thirty Years’ War marked the last major religious war in mainland Europe, ending the large-scale religious bloodshed accompanying the Reformation, which had begun over a century before. There were other religious conflicts in the years to come, but no great wars.”

The dems have probably figured out that their well-deserved reputation as untrustworthy on national security–see them on the Cold War and Southeast Asia–has worn out and they can throw another ally to the wolves. Oddly enough, for ostensibly human and American creatures, they seem to get a great deal of pleasure from treachery leading to mass death.

…if we decide to fight them, then we must do so along the lines of the General Sherman and General LeMay methods. As LeMay said, “If we kill enough of them, they’ll stop fighting.” Guess what? It worked with the Japanese.

I too agree with this. However, the ultra-PC “coexist in peace” crowd will never countenance such a proven aggressive methodology. They are blind to the fact that Islam is inherently hostile to Western Civilization, and its most vocal leaders have no qualms about making their enmity clear.

I am convinced it will take far more than 9/11 to clue the pacifist left into reality.

I think that we will eventually come to the conclusion that this planet is not big enough for both Islam and Western Civilization. No coexistence is possible. One side will win and the other side will lose.

The only question is how many Western lives will be lost before we get to that point.

That is certainly one possibility. It is the equivalent of building a wall and a moat around the non-Muslim world. That is what Israel appears to be doing. With the wall, strong internal security measures, and the oncoming Iron Dome they may be able to sit behind the wall and only react to attacks. However, there is an issue known by some as “globalization” that makes such quarantining difficult, particularly for a large, diverse country that depends on trade for economic success. Or in a country that prides itself on political correctness.

“How do you know that? What if the Muslim world is as the Christian world was in the Middle Ages, with well-nigh all the believers taking the religion seriously? And even if the majority aren’t active participants in the jihad, they could still be supporters of it.”

I cannot know for certain, but there is anecdotal evidence of such. My evidence is the fact that some Christians and atheists of my acquaintance have traveled in Muslim countries and not been attacked as infidels. I have worked with Muslims in Africa, the U.S., and Philippines who were not, as far as I could tell, fundamentalists. Our military operations in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would not be possible without the cooperation of a majority of Muslims in those countries. Iraq would not still be struggling to become democratic if the majority of Muslims there were fundamentalists. They would be either a Muslim theocracy or a dictatorship right now. Maybe not enough evidence to convince you, but it works for me.

“The real Thirty Years War was one of the results of Luther’s Reformation. That reformation had stemmed not from the desire to modernize the Christian religion, but quite the opposite: Luther thought his reforms were about bringing Christianity to an original, uncorrupted state.”

My understanding of the Thirty Years War was that it was a bloody, barbaric war primarily fought over Christian doctrine. When it was over there was such horror at what had been done in the name of God that it led eventually to a new tolerance for differing ceremonies and doctrines. It put Chrisianity on a path toward emphasizing the peace, love, and tolerance of the New Testament. I’m no historian, nor do I play one on TV, but that is my take away from the Thirty Years War. If I’m wrong, I’m willing to be instructed.