Hanson and the myths of Iraq
History will assess Iraq when it ends, writes military historian Victor Davis Hanson.
By the way, the “it” in that previous sentence refers to the war itself, not Iraq itself (hopefully), nor history itself (pace Fukuyama).
In his piece, Hanson deals with several myths of this war, including that old canard “there is no military solution.”
Of course there’s no military solution—if by “military solution” one means an approach that is solely of the traditional military type. But our attempts at solution there have always contained many other elements, some more or less successful than others. As Hanson points out, basic security—whether it’s called a military solution or a police action performed by the military—is the foundation for all the other possible approaches, which work in tandem with it, not separately.
Well, duh! Whether you hate Bush or not, whether you think Iraq is going well, poorly, or somewhere in between (I’m in that last camp), it’s hard to believe any well-informed person actually perceives our efforts there as having been solely military. And yet one hears that old canard again and again. Therefore I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point; or they are uninformed; and/or they are not thinking straight.
And they’re not reading Victor Davis Hanson.
Neo said, “Therefore I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point, or they are uninformed, and/or they are not thinking straight.
And they’re not reading Victor Davis Hanson.”
Indeed!
neo:
“I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point, or they are uninformed, and/or they are not thinking straight. “
Or they’re too invested in BDS to care, which leaves VDH preaching to the chior as usual.
In the end we will have won all of the battles and conceded defeat as we did in Vietnam.
ChiefTestPilot if that happens it will only be because the Democrat traitors made it happen.
There you go with the “traitors” canard again… like I said, you are advocating the violent overthrow of our government and the replacement of democracy with right wing government imposed by force… hard to find a more traitorous attitude than that.
Democracy’s chief virtue is that, because multiple viewpoints vie for acceptance, the one-sidedness inherent in most political philosophies can’t get too far out of hand. It doesn’t produce the best decisions but it tends to prevent bad ones from going on too long. You should be proud of our democratic system even if you sometimes disagree with the outcome. To do otherwise is to long for dictatorship… you’re welcome to it but do it in someone else’s country and leave ours alone, thank you very much.
I happen to agree, again, here, with neoneocon… though I am an avowed opponent of this war, I never understood what “there is no military solution” was really supposed to mean. It seems to be a slogan with no clear meaning.
I’m only repeating the musing of Thomas Sowell
“When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”
Our country has been able to survive the undermining that the Leftists have done to it so far… but it will not survive the Islamic threat while being undermined by the enemies within.
The Leftists currently controlling the Democrat party have no clue the threat we’re facing, it’s not even clear if the Executive does but at least Republicans aren’t actively trying to defeat every effort we make… we can’t afford to make many more mistakes.
“You should be proud of our democratic system even if you sometimes disagree with the outcome.”
To veer off topic a bit… I honestly think that the biggest damage done to our democratic system was, not Bush *winning* in 2000, but in Gore being a poor loser. The mantra that the wrong person winning was a tragedy was not supportive of the democratic system that we have. Recall that 9-11 had not happened and the best thing that could be said about Bush was that he was far more moderate than most Republicans and rather boring. Yet rather than support the system even while unhappy with the outcome it was the end of the world.
In 2000 I had no preference between Bush or Gore. I really, sincerely, did not care who won. I think that I was about as close to an uninterested observer as was possible.
More damage was done by those choosing to destroy the system because they didn’t like the outcome than by the outcome itself. And it’s only gotten worse. When people don’t like the outcome, suddenly everything the government does is “illegal” even though it’s not.
There isn’t any “disagreeing” there is only scorched earth.
In 2000 I had no preference between Bush or Gore. I really, sincerely, did not care who won. I think that I was about as close to an uninterested observer as was possible.
I was still a socialist back then. Imbibed too much Hollywood movies and tv shows about military jackbooted thugs, ya know.
I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas. I will simply say two things: one, what you suggest I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge. In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.
But what’s more, to me, the Republicans have implemented a very weak policy in response to what we both agree is a very serious threat. Not all Dems would do better but I believe many would. We have different views on that.
What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even when and in fact because from time to time your adversaries are in power. Totalitarians never understand that.
More damage was done by those choosing to destroy the system because they didn’t like the outcome than by the outcome itself. And it’s only gotten worse. When people don’t like the outcome, suddenly everything the government does is “illegal” even though it’s not.
Hey, if it works, do it.
Setting limits on what people can and cannot do is the basis of democracies and republics (given their dependence on government, central or otherwise). Doing it well, is not the basis of democracies and republics though. At least, survival is not guaranteed for such systems.
My point is that people can be excused for doing what pays off for them. The role of republics is to make sure that the rights things pay and the wrong things cost. I have some sympathy for the argument that it is not the crimina’s fault that they keep doing the crime. That society bears most of the responsibility.
After all, if as a member of society I do not support and promote the execution, crucifixion, and obliteration of criminal repeat offenders, then who is more at fault when criminals committ more crimes? Criminals are just that, people who have a low ethics hierarchy and are devoted solely to what benefits themselves. That should be obvious, so it is mostly my fault that such people have not yet been exterminated. For I know better. They can’t help themselves, but I can. Society must always expect better of its members than the asocial and anti-social peeps. The greater burden of duty and responsibility goes to the strong, for weakness has always bred disaster and death.
So in the end, while I blame the Left for the choices they have made, I blame Bush even more for refusing to crush Valerie Plame and all her friends on the DC social circuit. Bush knows better or at least he should. Compare this with Plame, who will go where the money and benefits goes. You can’t expect too much ethical enlightenment from such folks, Synova. I certainly don’t. I don’t expect them to be loyal, patriotic, or anything else requiring a spine.
It would be one thing if Bush was a true victim, a powerless face amongst many faces that just could not help himself. There are many like that, even here in the United States. Bush ain’t one of them. He has power, defined as the ability to kill, save, and influence people’s lives. He has no excuses.
There isn’t any “disagreeing” there is only scorched earth.
I liked to say that if you don’t use the power you have, then prepare to lose em. There is also the fact that the more you tolerate people acting up, then the more extreme the solution must inevitably be to cure people of acting up.
Amen to that!
Yes. the leftists are traitorious… but that’s what they do..
The bigger crime is that Bush allows this to occur with impunity.
Sandy Burger (on Hillary’s campaign) stole and destroyed original documents from the archives!
He gets a handslap.
Where are the Congressional Hearings for that?
Where is a Special Prosecutor for that?
Nancy Pelosi in the spring, went on an indepenent Foreign Policy mission to the middle east in violation of law.. where is the sanction against that?
The New York Times publishes the secret tactics we use to hunt the terrorists.. where is the sedition charge?
We’re in a war and the leadership is recklessly lax.
I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas.
As you said on another thread, I like to have an open toolbox as well.
Why should certain things be discounted just because of a person’s beliefs inspite of the actual situation of the US?
I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge
There was this idea of a Loyal Opposition. The Republicans could have smeared FDR for having an extra-marital affair, which was a big thing back then, but they didn’t. They didn’t even try to dig up the dirt, seemingly. Some of that was basic decency but it was also due to the fact that they knew it wouldn’t pay. The Republicans that is.
To sum up the Jackosnian War party’s intentions for America. We, or I at least, want a killer for the leader of the United States. A killer of America’s enemies. All of America’s enemies.
Will such things lead to Republicans in power and the destruction of the US Constitution? It depends on the future situation, does it not.
In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.
That is for the situation to determine, not for you. How can you really tell that such will lead to such and such even before you look at what is going on on the actual ground?
You decry Republicans or conservative disinterest in any diplomacy as being ineffective, yet you show the lack of flexibility you accuse others of right here. You would say that your beliefs are sourced from reality or truth. The same for the conservatives. However, unlike in anthropology, both philosophies can’t be “true” at the same time, given that they are mutually exclusive.
What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even when
That’s like saying a team is stronger than a dictator. It could be because the dictator is weak and the team is full of strong people, as you suggested. Or it could be the dictator is a strong leader of the team up against a loner. It really depends.
Teams are only as strong as their members. Which means if one member is 10X stronger than the other team members, you can get a team stronger than an individual police state that is only 5x stronger than a normal individual. A teammate has to pull the weight of the entire team, so obviously this strengthens its members. It may not be fair, but that is just how it is.
because from time to time your adversaries are in power.
That is a belief that is the same as advocating a passive defense in order to absorb an attack and then launch an attack that would be backed by the international community and local citizens.
Why should you openly weaken yourself simply in order to declare, after the fact, that you can do things that you could always have done?
From time to time, your adversaries get into power, mess things up, and then you come into power and clean things up. An efficient system, almost as efficient as waiting to be hit and then striking back knowing that you could have struck back before but prefered an easier route.
Why is such passivity prefered? I know full well that you don’t see your views, Mitsu, as purposefully setting the nation up for a fall or a spike. You see a long term justification for such actions that validates whatever risks you may admit.
Yet humans are fallible. They are even more fallible when they believe that there will be other people using other methods to clean up their mistakes. I don’t ascribe to the philosophy that you should just let things happen cause there’s always a next time for something new.
Because there is NOT always a next time. There wasn’t for Iran and Cuba. Maybe in another 100 to 500 years, perhaps, but it was one election, one time for them. Or maybe not even one election.
I am with Synova on her concerns over long term stability of a democratic and republic system of governance. I do not believe, Mitsu, that every tool in the toolbox can be used safely because there is always a second or third or fourth chance to get things right. There is only one life, and it is the life we have now.
What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even
What’s ironic is that you continue to believe that the methods of force necessary for healthy democracies and republics, makes one into a police state. You mirror my belief that there won’t be a second chance… but only for actions out of a toolbox that are mutually exclusive with the ones I favor.
I believe there likely won’t be a second chance if the trend set by Democrats continue. You believe there won’t be a second chance for democracy if Americans correct the situation with the Democrats.
These are mutually exclusive beliefs. Democracy and republics are based upon compromise. But there can be no compromise between mutually exclusive beliefs.
PS. Nazi tactics are called Nazi tactics only because the Republic of Weimar let the Nazi leaders live when they could have offed them. That’s how Nazi tactics come about, because the government tries to compromise and give the Nazis more power, instead of killing them.
What you’re missing is that the Jihadists have a stragety to take advantage of the Democrat’s inclination to politicize everything and use it against the country as a whole in order to defeat us.
In other words, the Democrats are the useful idiots of the terrorists… the jihadis use the Democrats to defeat the country.
You talk about the destruction of America… well so do I. We can’t fight a war when the Democrats put up 40 bills to get us to surrender.
Here is a statement about the jihadis view:
“The people of jihad need to carry out a media war parallel to the military war … because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations,” signed by Najd al-Rawi of the Global Islamic Media Front, a group associated with al Qaeda.
— continued —
Here is what a jihad expert predicted what would happen and has come to pass. What have the Democrats done to fight against any of this? Can you imagine them supporting any action to fight? I can’t.. they accomodate the jihadi’s goals
http://www.futurejihad.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=1
And what the Democrats doing in light of the following… NOTHING. they are irresonsible and we can’t afford to induldge in their power addiction
Like I said before, I am a pragmatist. I think dictatorships are mistakes because they don’t work, not because I think they are a priori evil.
The reason I believe the policy you recommend is weak is that you are not taking into account the larger system and the fact that other actors will resist your efforts, and further that you only have so much in the way of resources to fight with. You think Dems are trying to surrender but most of them think Republicans are misallocating our forces and want to allocate our armed forces where they will be more effective. I happen to think the current strategy is far too weak to provide the level of defense we need because we have aimed at the wrong targets, have given our enemies propaganda tools to help them, and have allowed them to regroup and regain strength after an initial success defeating the Taliban.
In my view Bush has done nearly everything Osama expected and wanted him to do after 9/11. To my mind Bush is falling for Osama’s strategy hook, line, and sinker. He couldn’t have asked for a better outcome in many ways for him. We are reviled now by many, he is still at large, and we are bogged down far from his base of operations.
I know you disagree but that’s America for you. The reason democracy is strong is that we let our divergent views be aired and debate them and come to a better strategy in the end.
Dictatorship is weak because there is no incentive for government to self-correct. Power leads to corruption as we saw with the Democrats before and the Republicans later. You want voters to be able to kick you out to keep you honest. That’s why democracy is stronger in the long term.
It is also far more stable once democratic habits are embedded. You think a violent overthrow of democracy woudln’t incite armed resistance? That is even more naive than thinking we would be greeted with flowers after we invaded Iraq.
Look at this.. how timely, I’m not alone:
Is Real Threat Al-Qaida Or Congress?
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, December 14, 2007 4:20 PM PT
National Security: After getting little done all year because it was too busy playing politics, Congress’ year-end priority is to make fighting the global war on terror as difficult as possible. A jihadist couldn’t ask for more.
President Bush promises to veto legislation not containing immunity from lawsuits for telecom firms who cooperate with the U.S. government in terrorist surveillance. Apparently spoiling for a fight, the House passed a bill without such immunity. It also legislated to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods on suspected terrorists.
Democrats also want to block 70% percent of the intelligence budget from being spent until the House and Senate intelligence committees get briefed on Israel’s September airstrike on an apparent nuclear facility in Syria. And they continue to try to tie war funding to a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq.
The pattern is clear: Over and over again, the ever-more disloyal opposition places obstacles in the way of our fighting al-Qaida and other terrorist enemies.
Whether it be on the Iraq battlefield, over the fiber-optic pathways of the Internet and voice communications, or in the cells of captured guerrillas, the Democratic Congress is against the most aggressive methods to win the new kind of war Western civilization now wages.
Fortunately, it has also, over and over again, run into another pattern: the president’s trademark stubbornness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently displayed her frustration with the commander-in-chief’s determination, giving a peak into liberal Democrats’ misguided thinking.
“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” she told reporters, adding that “the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., concurred. “It’s not just Nancy Pelosi,” she said. “I made a mistake. I predicted we would stop the war. We thought President Bush and the Republicans would be more compromising on the war.”
That is not quite the complete and unvarnished truth. What Democrats thought was that U.S. forces could not win, and that Iraq would seriously deteriorate this year. Those wearing the uniform soon proved her wrong after Bush applied the new surge strategy with 30,000 new troops and Marines, and a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus.
As House Republican leader John Boehner recently noted, “It’s clear that Democratic leaders underestimated the stakes, the consequences of failure and the determination of our troops to defeat al-Qaida on the battlefield.”
A few years ago it was a different story. In 2002, as we learned last week, none other than Nancy Pelosi, along with other congressional leaders from both parties, were briefed on the waterboarding and other tough practices being employed to extract information about terrorist plots from a limited number of al-Qaida detainees. Somehow, none of them thought it was worth raising a peep back then.
So in the wake of 9/11, liberal Democrats were hawks because the polls supported that. Now, with the presidential primary season well under way, they’re doves under pressure from the likes of MoveOn.org and others in their political and financial base.
The GOP by comparison has held firm, as Boehner could boast last week. “Republicans have stood on principle to protect current and future generations of Americans, whether it polled well or not, and the success our troops are having in Iraq today is proof positive that our stance was the right one,” he said.
Next year, the American people will have a momentous decision before them in choosing George W. Bush’s successor. The same enemy will be there, as determined as ever to commit more 9/11-style atrocities.
Whether it’s guns or surveillance or interrogation, Congress this year has shown us all that it would take away the tools necessary to protect Americans – if only it had a president who would sign on.
I happen to agree, Vince P, that Democrats are pushing withdrawal too soon. As I’ve said before, I think the Iraq war is a strategic mistake which we should try to extricate ourselves from as soon as we safely can: so we can focus on other threats. But, we can’t leave Iraq too quickly or we will risk leaving things worse than they were before we invaded (a very likely outcome no matter what we do, but we should at least do everything possible to avoid this outcome). However, as I’ve argued above, I believe Bush has played right into Osama’s hands time and again (with the exception of the initial Afghan campaign) — as in fact, I am sorry to say, I think you are, by supporting his ineffectual (in my opinion) strategies. The Democrats are making a mistake, I believe, in not stressing that the issue is putting up a more effective defense and offense against Al Qaeda and the jihadists — except I think those like Barack Obama are making that case, which is why I keep saying I am supporting him. I would support a Republican who made a similar case, but none of them are — they all, except for Ron Paul, and to some extent McCain, support the Bush plan which I think is ineffectual for the reasons I noted above.
Regarding surveillance, however — obviously the Democrats don’t care about legitimate surveillance of terrorists. The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security. There are many, many very good reasons for that — not the least of which is to avoid America moving in the direction of the sort of police state which, as I argued above, I believe is weaker in the long run in the face of external threats.
Really? These are the same Democrats who wanted to put the Clipper chip into every communication device? The same party that said nothing when HUNDREDS of FBI files of republicans were found in Clinton’s White House.
Hillary Clinton listening to illegally recorded audio of republicans? Democrats illegally taping GOP leadership in the 1990s?
Seems to me they have no problem listening or looking at things they shouldnt
The Hanson analysis is on target. Whether the Iraq war was an error and leaving the thugs incharge the better alternative is ike looking for water after the house has burnt down. We are beyond blame and need to focus on reasoable solutions. A power vacum that surely would follow an abrupt withdrawal of out forces is not a viable option. We are in it just as we have been “stuck” in Korea after repelling the invasion from the North and from China, or the Yugoslavian mess that seems to go on forever although at no loss of life for us (so far). The uncontrolled influence of the Iranian religious thugs is not a viable option either, and our presence to check them is simply not negotiable for now.
Unless a Democrat win with a “run away” agenda wins in 2008, a long term presence of American force is required and will be maintained. Hanso is completley correct that “military solutions” were required and did result in democratic states amongst the Axis of World War ll. The very notion of democratic government in Tojo’s Japan, Hitler’s Germany, even Vichy France or fascist Italy in 1941, must have seemed far fetched and impossible. Military power made the resulting democratic nations possible.
Hanson is so spot on. I have some belief that it will be his writings which will, ultimately, be our voice to some future age. Like artists, historians are separated in time, the wheat and the chaff. Even when I do disagree with him, it is eminently debatable, with the odds dubiously ill-favored. And yet, on occasion, I climb that hill.
Not only does he see the layout in military, political, and social aspects, he is able to compare and contrast with history (real history), define strategic events before they are mainstream understood as such (if they ever are mainstreamed), but more, he points well to the future. I would almost classify him a history scientist. (if science wasn’t earning such a poor name for itself of late)
Oh, and Merry Christmas. If need be, translate that to your flavor of choice, minus one. Those can go bugger a goat for all I care. *sigh* I try.
Like I said before, I am a pragmatist. I think dictatorships are mistakes because they don’t work, not because I think they are a priori evil.-Mitsu
You’re not addressing the imporant subject, which is why you believe that correcting the weaknesses in America will create a dictatorship or something like it. Do you not believe there is a weakness to correct? Do you believe there are other ways to solve the problem? Or do you believe those advocating the solutions are the problem?
These are the important subjects to discuss.
I would almost classify him a history scientist.-Doom
Classify him as a classical liberal, for it is from that which all else flows.
obviously the Democrats don’t care about legitimate surveillance of terrorists.-Mitsu
The Democrats never cared about surveillance in the first place. Their overwhelming priority was winning, at any cost. You speak as if the Democrats truly wanted to get something productive done concerning surveillance on Americans or terrorists. That is an erroneous assumption. Maybe not all Democrats are this way, but certainly enough to organize and lead the Democrat party to the way it currently is.
The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security.-Mitsu
I don’t expect you to have the same beliefs as I do about the Democrats, but I find it interesting that you would discount a large majority of the available toolbox solutions simply because you wish to believe that the Democrats believe in what you say they believe. I don’t ascribe to your philosophy so I have no problems with betting things on a pre-emptive belief that the Democrats are corrupt and unwise. I am simply surprised that you would bet just as much that the Democrats are not or will not be corrupt and unwise.
The reason I believe the policy you recommend is weak is that you are not taking into account the larger system and the fact that other actors will resist your efforts
Considering what other factors or Murphy esque situations may come into play are indeed valid consideration.
This is even regardless of which person’s policy you are refering to. Vince’s, mine, or others.
You think Dems are trying to surrender but most of them think Republicans are misallocating our forces
However, the problems you predict or expect will always be problems, regardless of what we do or don’t do. Democrats will always believe that their political opponents are wrong or misallocating resources; that is simply how democracy, republics, and politics work. If they agreed, they would be on the same side, but they are not on the same side. Not anymore. Not perhaps since the US Civil War and WWII.
because we have aimed at the wrong targets-M
Come on, you believe a lot more than that the invasion and pre-emptive strategy should have been aimed at Iran or Pakistan. You believe the methods of attack are wrong, not just the target. Which is a different case altogether than believing in the wrong target while approving of Petraeus’ COIN strategy against all terrorists.
have given our enemies propaganda tools to help them
Propaganda is only as effective so long as a person’s head is attached to his body. No amount of propaganda can re-attach a man or a woman’s head and make other people believe this man/woman is alive and functional. Propaganda is powerful, I agree, but not as powerful as the death dealt to Saddam and terrorism in Iraq.
Propaganda is in the business of taking any and every action you do and paint them as being good for them and bad for us. It has no bearing on reality, except when it is necessary to conduct propaganda and psychological warfare operations. That is not the same as saying truth is the best propaganda though, since propaganda includes more then just telling the truth. The enemy’s propaganda is of course based upon the fundamentals I have just described; instead of telling the truth, for the truth would destroy the basis for the Islamic Jihad while it would not harm us. The Islamic Jihad must make every action we do into a false narrative.
Which is of course why your sentiments regarding enemy propaganda tools are non-critical to US security.
and have allowed them to regroup and regain strength after an initial success defeating the Taliban.
Terrorism can never be effective against the United States unless they create organized crime and terrorist organizations here in the States. Recent and previous captures of terrorists and their cells by the FBI shows that Al Qaeda is not in a condition to properly finance the creation of effective criminal syndicate organizations here in the States. AQ doesn’t even seem to have devoted much if any resources to allying with the criminal cartels in Mexico, the southern Border, and in the illegal drug/human trafficking business at all.
You may see such a situation concerning terrorism, whether AQ or Islamic Revolution, as meaning they are “regrouping and regaining strength”. I see it as a testament to their weakness and strategic incompetence. Weaknesses and incompetence fostered by American victories in Iraq, not to mention the invaluable experience and intelligence gained from fighting terrorists instead of waiting in American cities for terrorists to attack.
In my view Bush has done nearly everything Osama expected and wanted him to do after 9/11.
That of course would mean that Osama pre-empted Bush. Which would validate the doctrine of pre-emption if carried out competently. Yet you don’t believe pre-emption can be carried out competently, or at least you have always given reasons why pre-emption have crashed and burned before. Osama didn’t wait until Bush attacked him and then launched 9/11, which is a strategy that you recommended when we were discussing Iraq, Mitsu. So I don’t see why your view on what Bush did has anything consistent your real beliefs.
We are reviled now by many
Of course we are. America has always had many enemies envious of our power, wisdom, prestige, and military/economic endurance.
Do you somehow believe those enemies just didn’t exist until Bush’s actions? Or do you believe as I do that those enemies came out of the woodworks only because they now saw a chance to loot American prestige for their own benefit?
he is still at large, and we are bogged down far from his base of operations.
Which raises the obvious question of how you expect your own policies or Obama’s policies to not bog down in Pakistan. Do you believe you and Obama are more competent than Bush’s vacillation with the UN and religious compassion? I doubt it.
Pakistan (where we perhaps can agree that Osama is based in) has about half the population of America. If, as you say, Bush is bogged down in Iraq far from Osama Bin Laden, how do you think you will be able to go through 150 million people, compared to the 60 million or so in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush had to deal with?
Do you somehow believe that the amount of lives and treasury spent in Iraq will somehow reduce when you are trying to fight 150 million Pakistanis in order to get at Osama amongst their cities and tribes?
Such things are not logical, Mitsu.
I know you disagree but that’s America for you. The reason democracy is strong is that we let our divergent views be aired and debate them and come to a better strategy in the end.
Yet that has no relation to what the Democrats did when they aired all their arguments against WMDs, for sanctions, and for Saddam’s sovereignty, and then were overruled by the President. They didn’t contribute to a better strategy in the end. They didn’t even try. Why such a problem should be tolerated in a republic is a reason you have never provided, Mitsu.
Dictatorship is weak because there is no incentive for government to self-correct.
You have also never provided any reason or evidence for why solving the problem of the Democrats will create dictatorship. You wish to argue as if dictatorship will already happen as you predict. Yet why should I or any other here be obligated to accept your erroneous and false philosophical assumptions without challenge?
That is not and has never been the way to a better strategy.
You think a violent overthrow of democracy woudln’t incite armed resistance?
You mistake the Jacksonian war party position as being revolutionary in nature, when it is purely reformist in nature. Reformists know that if the system does not reform, then you truly will get a revolution sooner or later. Truly the KKK were revolutionary, but the only KKK member I know of is Robert Byrd, who is a Democrat, not a Republican or a Jacksonian.
People like Vince don’t seem to want to wait until then, when they will be fighting from a position of weakness with their system of government already destroyed beyond recognition. The situation Europe is now in with the EU.
America is still strong and can still purge the parasites and acidic corrosion effects now, without sacrificing a limb or a life. But that is only true for now, it won’t be true in the future.
>Pakistan
First of all, I don’t believe attacking Osama in the tribal areas of Pakistan will require invading Pakistan and taking it over the way we did Iraq. Instead, what will likely occur is we pressure the current Pakistani government to accept joint operations in the region or force them to accept a limited incursion in the tribal areas only. There’s no reason whatsoever that we would have to take over Islamabad, and in fact it’s highly unlikely we could do so even if we wanted to.
However, the main point here is that trying to attack Osama in the tribal areas is not preventive war at all, it is a response to his attack on us on 9/11. That’s the whole point! The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you’re attacking someone who has not attacked you first, and therefore you create far more resistance from others. Attacking someone who HAS attacked you, on the other hand, doesn’t generate the same counter-reaction. That’s the point I raised with Bismarck.
>dictatorship
The whole idea of overthrowing democracy by force in the United States is so obviously insane that I’m amazed I even have to argue against it here. First of all, it would wipe out the claim that the United States is somehow “more ethical” than other countries — wasn’t the whole idea that we’re better than other countries, partly because we’re democratic and they’re not?
In any event, what you propose will never occur, because for one thing our military is loyal to the Constitution and therefore they’d stop an action such as you propose. But, even if you managed to someone organize a force to attempt to overthrow the Constitution, I simply assert that most loyal Americans would be radically opposed to you (since most Americans believe, unlike you, in democracy), and there would be violence (provided you could somehow put together a force large enough to actually defeat loyal members of our own military). The only way one could prevent armed resistance to your coup would be to impose permanent police state: which is, of course, the definition of dictatorship.
Naturally, since you believe Democrats are ALWAYS out to destroy the country, you would have to cancel elections, or: if people voted Republicans out, you’d have to simply make elections pro-forma, like the old Soviet Union. This would mean of course voting would become meaningless, like the Soviet Union, and the government would descend into corruption.
>America is still strong and can still purge the parasites
>and acidic corrsion effects now
Since your antidemocratic coup is never going to happen, I do want to address the central issue you raise, which is the notion that Democrats are power-hungry maniacs who simply want to destroy the country and are only interested in power. Yet, from the Democratic side, Republicans appear to be the same. They talk about budget discipline but when they get into power, they get involved in the same pork-barrell politics, accepting money in exchange for votes, etc., the Democrats used to do in the old days. It’s corruption on both sides.
The reality is, Democrats and Republicans are both motivated by their constituents. You might think Democrats are insane to oppose warrantless wiretapping, but there are many Americans, myself included, who think warrantless wiretapping is one step down the road to the destruction of the Republic. It’s not, again, the Democrats want to stop surveillance of our enemy: it’s that they want it to be approved by Congress and the courts. The Bush Administration believes they should be able to do it even when it is illegal or when the courts say they can’t. That is the beginning of dictatorship and something I believe everyone should oppose.
Democrats are not perfect, neither are Republicans, but for the most part the majority are public servants who want to serve the good of the nation. They are corruptible, on both sides. But the fact that they disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re trying to destroy the country, it means they have different thinking from you. I vote for Democrats because at the moment their thinking is more closely aligned with my views, even though I disagree with them at times. I’m glad there is a Republican Party because otherwise the corruption would mount up again. You should be glad there’s a Democratic Party for the same reasons.
The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you’re attacking someone who has not attacked you first, and therefore you create far more resistance from others.
Wow… Just Wow….
How many dead Americans is enough to make our case with the Chinese, French and Russians?
No thanks, if it means dying just so we “don’t create resistance” among ‘others’, count me out.
That’s why you get the charged with ‘traitor’–you value ‘world opinion’ more than the lives of your contrymen.
Sick. Treacherous.
>you value “world opinion” more than the lives of your countrymen
Oh, please. You have no idea what I am talking about, Gray, whoever you are. I am not talking about “world opinion” — how stupid can you be? Obviously if a move was in our national interest but merely caused “world opinion” to turn against us, that would still be something we ought to do. You obviously haven’t read any of the other discussion we’ve had on this subject.
What I am saying is preventive war is usually a *strategic military* mistake because it creates a greater *military threat* than the initial threat you intended to tame via the preventive war. I’ve already posted this link, but Jack Snyder illustrates the argument very well, here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99377573.html
Of course I am in favor of the strongest, most effective defense against our enemies possible. I simply think the Bush strategy has been *weak*, playing right into the hands of our enemy. The paramount concern for me and for most Americans, Democrat or Republican, is American national security. As I’ve written above I am in opposition to many Democratic ideas but overall, I am more in agreement with them than disagreement. That’s why I vote for them, despite my disagreements. I’m actually glad the surge, for example, happened, despite Democratic opposition. But while I disagree with a precipitous withdrawal I think we do need to refocus our efforts elsewhere as soon as we can safely do so.
(Although it should be noted — though this is obvious many fail to realize it — world opinion DOES matter in one respect: it makes it more difficult to find strategic allies if world opinion is against you — another reason we’re bogged down in Iraq is that we have no substantial allies with us. Had we a large allied force we’d have far more flexibility militarily. But the point is I am concerned with military issues, not just “world opinion” — but to the extent that world opinion affects military issues, then it is something to be concerned with.)
Mitsu is perhaps correct in terms of allies and support–more bodies would make completion of the tasks required less a burden on U.S. forces. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen because of the reluctence of European or Asian allies to commit forces and necessary money. The supposed allies have not even lived up to the funds that they agreed to contribute to support the Iraqi government. However, I suggest it no longer matters if there is allied support simply because withdrawal would be a disater, and the substantial gains the the U.S. military has made would be rapidly lost. The only options left are to continue the American presence, certainly well into the next Presidency if not beyond, and attempt to build up the Iraqi military so it can manage more and more on its own. It is likely that a badly needed expansion in the size of our won military will be required.
it makes it more difficult to find strategic allies if world opinion is against you – another reason we’re bogged down in Iraq is that we have no substantial allies with us. Had we a large allied force we’d have far more flexibility militarily.
Really? Look at armed force by country:
Germany 285,000 (130,000 reserves)
France 259,000 (100,000)
Japan 239,000 ( 47,000)
Italy 230,000 ( 65,000)
Spain 177,000 (329,000)
Canada 125,000 ( 35,000)
Netherlands 53,000 ( 32,000)
Belgium 41,000 ( -)
Countries with troops in Iraq:
UK 467,000 ( 57,000)
USA 1,426,000 (858,000)
I believe we were discussing “substantial allies.”
Bottom line: countries other than the UK would play only a symbolic role in any case by holding our coats.
Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.
Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial.
Please. You’re embarrassing yourself.
If every Chinese jumped off a chair at the same time, they might move the Earth too.
Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.
Cheer up. We might lose yet. Keep a good thought.
>Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.
They can’t even find any helicopters to airlift UN troops to Darfur.
The Royal Canadian Army is smaller than the New York City police department, according to the sainted Richard Clarke.
‘Nuff said.
Your comments are just dumb. Comparing the US to an individual EU country is like comparing Russia to Massachusetts. NATO as a whole is a substantial military force.
The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily. The UK pulled out partly because the Iraq war lacked sufficient public support. That’s why you can’t ignore politics in war… war is inherently political.
>cheer up, we may lose yet
Losing is precisely what worries me. That’s why we need a far stronger strategy than we have been employing.
I disagree. Your comments are childlike in their simplemindedness.
NATO as a whole doesn’t exist, except on paper. The whole point of NATO was to bind the US to protect the feckless Europeans from Russia, and secondarily from a resurgent Germany. Name an instance in which NATO actually acted, other than to order another round of drinks. I give you, as a case in point, Kosovo, a problem right in Europe’s backyard, where they couldn’t/wouldn’t do squat until and unless the US did the heavy lifting. Try to keep up.
Considering the EU countries individually is the only acceptable course of action, since they act independently. Moreover, most of the countries comprising the EU detest each other at a visceral level, and have been at each others’ throats since the fall of the Roman Empire.
World opinion doesn’t count for a goddamned thing. The relevant politics are internal (internal to the US and to Iraq). What France or Peru or Thailand thinks couldn’t matter less.
Not only that.. but NATO helped the wrong side.
It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. So it’s bizarre to suggest that NATO is militarily irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Afghan war included substantial support from a large number of NATO countries: the US invoked the mutual defense clause of the NATO charter. At present, the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan, one of the largest forces there, is under NATO command. It is historic in that it’s the first NATO operation outside of the European North Atlantic area.
Mitsu–2:50PM:
Oh, please. You have no idea what I am talking about, Gray, whoever you are. I am not talking about “world opinion” – how stupid can you be?
Mitsu–8:18PM:
Your comments are just dumb. Comparing the US to an individual EU country is like comparing Russia to Massachusetts. NATO as a whole is a substantial military force.
The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily.
So, I ask again: How many American civilians should we lose to gain ‘world opinion’?
I think Massachusetts’ GDP is probably the same size as Russia’s now–and if you count the illegal aliens, Mass has a higher birthrate!
Maybe I’m dumb, but smart enough to bust you out: Really, how many Americans must die to secure ‘world opinion’ for a war?
It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation.
HAHAHAHAHA!
NATO had to intervene ‘cuz ‘World Opinion’ in the UN was against a preemptive war against the Serbs.
We’ll be out of Iraq before we are out of Bosnia….
It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. So it’s bizarre to suggest that NATO is militarily irrelevant.
It’s moronic to suggest that NATO had anything to do with it. NATO sat on its hands until the US acted, then “participated” on a purely symbolic basis. Contributing a squad or two and a few cooks and observers doesn’t count.
Gray … like I said, if you think preventive war will reduce the chances Americans will be killed, fine. I happen to think it increases the chances Americans will be killed. So, how many Americans must die to satisfy your desire to go to war with the wrong enemy?
The NATO operation in Afghanistan is hardly a token few squads… it is massive. Thus you’re simply wrong that NATO support means nothing.
(And again, to be clear… I am not against war against our enemy. I simply believe we should be attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan full on, not halfheartedly, and redeploy from Iraq as soon as we can, without leaving too soon.)
Mr. Hanson writes:
“Conventional wisdom about Iraq is rarely questioned.”
Back on earth, there is a raging debate on about Iraq, with Fox News Channel etc. insisting that the war is a patriotic cavalcade of heroic American morality and steely geopolitical will that cannot and has not failed.
Columnists at the NY Times etc. insist the war has already failed by showing that the U.S. is deeply divided over the pre-emptive attack doctrine and that the war’s most vehement supporters are unwilling to volunteer to fight in it or to accept higher taxes to pay for it.
Hanson is certainly correct that conventional wisdom is that the war has fundamentally failed to make America more secure. But it’s preposterous to assert that the conventional view is “rarely questioned” when in fact it is under constant withering attack by conservatives from talk radio to Fox to the Wall Street Journal and the blogosphere.
In other places, Hanson destroys his own argument:
“A political solution is only possible if there is security,” writes Hanson.
If the solution is military, there should be no need for a political solution. But Hanson acknowledges the need for a political solution. In doing so, he’s conceding “there is no military solution.”
Even the strongest, best armed, best led, most aggressive military in the world cannot create a stable democracy in Iraq until a political agreement is arrived at. So far, the military has failed to compel such an agreement and has, in fact, pushed the parties away from one.
At the moment, the U.S. has tamped down the civil war by strategically siding with Iraqi militia that are in a position to control territory and, with U.S. weapons and cover, isolate and destroy ethnic, religious and tribal rivals. The problem with this “surge” tactic is that it deepens the rivalries and mistrust between the factions, putting a political solution–which even Hanson acknowledges is necessary–further and further out of reach.
It’s just silly to believe that decline in violence in Iraq, occassioned by the consolidation of ethnic and religious cleansing within Baghdad and surrounding hot spots, will lead to any kind of lasting peace.
“The problem of structuring formal talks about substantive issues, however, is largely with Iran, not us,” Hanson writes.
This is an excellent example of how eschewing historical objectivity in favor of polemics dooms Hanson’s logic. Whether moral responsibility for the failure to engage Iran lies with the mullahs or with the White House has no relevance to the question of whether such engagement could benefit the U.S.
We know that the Bush administration rejected Iran’s 2003 offer to end its nuclear program, but that should be no reason for Iran, based on its own self-interest, to decline to engage in diplomacy. Though I am sure Iran has it’s own version of Hanson and I’m sure he’s arguing just as Hanson does, that diplomacy with the U.S. is useless.
America’s diplomatic capabilities and leverage are second to none, even in their currently mismanaged state. Why then, does Hanson believe that Iran will necessarily win out in a game of diplomacy? Why does he have so little confidence in American diplomatic skill and commitment?
Eschewing historical objectivity again in favor of ideological cant, Hanson proceeds to declare that because the final toll in Iraq is unknown, we must assume it will succeed.
The logical flaw is obvious, but beyond that, there is the reality that in Third World guerrilla conflicts, time is most definitely on the side of indigenous resisters. There’s no guarantee that’s the way it will go in Iraq, but anyone claiming to base their analysis on history must bet that way.
Hanson writes:
“But already we sense that the worst thing our enemies – al Qaeda, Iran, Libya, or Syria – feared was the establishment of a constitutional government in place of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the accompanying principle that autocratic governments of the region cannot acquire dangerous arsenals to support terror and to bully their neighbors.”
Syria has for a very long time waged a brutal war against the likes of Al Qaeda, as has Libya and to a lesser extent, Iran. These countries would love to see Saddam Hussein’s unstable tyranny replaced with a democracy that they could much more reliably cut deals with–much as the monarchies and Libya currently do with the U.S.
What Syria and the others fear far more is the emergence of a new Afghanistan in Iraq and that, alas, is what is happening. We’re already seeing terrorists flowing in and out of Iraq for training, posing a threat to regimes across North Africa and the Middle East.
jimfocus: Can you please bring us a desenting Leftist who *doesn’t* type like a obnoxious snobby cheerleader girl?
The whole idea of overthrowing democracy by force in the United States is so obviously insane that I’m amazed I even have to argue against it here.
That is not what the argument is about though. Not whether the idea of overthrowing democracy by force is good or not. The argument is why you think the people you are talking to is supporting or somehow leading to the overthrow of democracy through force.
The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you’re attacking someone who has not attacked you first
Neither Pakistan nor most of the tribes in Northern pakistan has attacked America. Supplied resources to the Taliban so that they could kill Americans and Afghanis in Afghanistan, yes, but they didn’t attack America. Nor did the Taliban attack America. So I don’t see what your point here is, since your arguments refute your own policies concerning striking into Pakistan, joint ops or not.
Attacking someone who HAS attacked you
If you are going to be going around attacking people that simply have connections and relations with the organizational chain of command that kill Americans, then America will indeed be in an eternal war of perpetual pre-emptive attacks.
First of all, it would wipe out the claim that the United States is somehow “more ethical” than other countries – wasn’t the whole idea that we’re better than other countries, partly because we’re democratic and they’re not?
That’s really a separate issue, you know. Besides, America is more moral because America is the strongest. Only morality can lead to true strength, and America has true strength. Immorality leads to Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is weakness and parasitism.
In any event, what you propose will never occur, because for one thing our military is loyal to the Constitution and therefore they’d stop an action such as you propose.
There you go again, Mitsu, assuming your beliefs are true without arguing them or even describing them. You are amazed that you have to explain why you believe that I am proposing an action to overthrow the US or the US Constitution? I am amazed that you are amazed, if you can believe that.
Naturally, since you believe Democrats are ALWAYS out to destroy the country, you would have to cancel elections, or
The Sunnis were out to destroy the nation of Iraq, or at least the Shia portion of it. Did the Iraqis have to cancel their elections or somehow blacklist the Sunnis from participating in representative democracy? No. You’re just over-reacting now, Mitsu, not using logic.
There is no “natural” without also the logical.
I do want to address the central issue you raise, which is the notion that Democrats are power-hungry maniacs who simply want to destroy the country and are only interested in power.
A parasite destroys his host every second of the year. That is because a parasite requires the destruction of the host to live. That is the same relationship between power and the country. The Parasites could get more power by strenghtening their host, but that is not how natural decreed things. Nor is it the will of the Democrats, because they could have chosen cooperation instead of parasitism, but they didn’t. They didn’t in 2002, they didn’t in 2003, and they still haven’t chosen cooperative hunting in 2007. I do not say they never will, I say that only their destruction would force them to cooperate, which would also mean the destruction of America.
You might think Democrats are insane to oppose warrantless wiretapping
What the Democrats opposed was the surveillaince of any information going through the United States territory, including internet/phone communications routed through the US and to other parts of the world. You do know that the US is a central hub of the world wide internet, right? And that phones can and do use such routers as well as internet hubs?
It’s not, again, the Democrats want to stop surveillance of our enemy: it’s that they want it to be approved by Congress and the courts.
The Democrats want what they are made to want. And currently Bush has given them every reason to believe that the Democrats can be made to want power and get it.
The Democrats really don’t care whether the enemy gets surveilled or not. What they do care about is whether such things will give them more power or not. Bush has said yes, obstructing US security will give you power, and so the Democrats do as they are bide.
That is the beginning of dictatorship and something I believe everyone should oppose.
It is those philosophical and logical assumptions that get you in the end, Mitsu. For it does not matter at all what occurs or what happens in a “situation” so long as your basic axiomatic assumption of existence is that Bush’s actions are “the beginning of dictatorship”.
You won’t even question your assumption that I am somehow supporting a coup of the US government, even when I specifically challenged you on this. Why is your mind so compartamentalized that it slips around these assumptions, obvious assumptions, as if they don’t exist, Mitsu?
But the fact that they disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re trying to destroy the country, it means they have different thinking from you.
Correct, it means that they have a different thinking of what makes America strong. They believe strength comes from exploiting others, like a parasite exploits a host. I believe America is made stronger through cooperative hunting, of all of America’s enemies, domestic or foreign.
You should be glad there’s a Democratic Party for the same reasons.
Any party can be a counter-balance to the party in power, Mitsu. America doesn’t need the acid that has been Democrat history, at this critical juncture of America’s future destiny in this century.
If every Chinese jumped off a chair at the same time, they might move the Earth too.
A point for you, Oc.
NATO as a whole is a substantial military force.
Given that your interest is in pakistan and Afghanistan, Mitsu, I find that comment to be unfortunate for you given NATO’s disastrous conduct in Afghanistan.
“Substantial” military force that is a strategic ally? I doubt it. Strategic allies are those with the same strategic interests as you. Europe’s strategy interest is in self-destructing. That is nowhere near where America wishes to go.
If a nation has a mutual interest or enemy with you, then they will ally. It will not matter a damn what “public” or “international” opinion is on the air, for necessity breeds action, not wishes and fantasy.
The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily.
I think you have confused propaganda with military power. They really aren’t the same things.
The UK pulled out partly because the Iraq war lacked sufficient public support.
The UK pulled out of Basrah because the UK weren’t willing to take on Sadr and the Shia extremists there beating up students and killing Americans like Vince Foster. Tge UK lost and they knew it, so they cut their investments. More work and reward for us in the end.
That’s why you can’t ignore politics in war… war is inherently political.
Of course it is. That is why Hannibal was denied support and reinforcements from Hanno’s anti-Barcid faction, in the 2nd Punic War, because Hanno wished to destroy Hannibal’s family and power. Just cause this ended up also destroying Carthage, is no skin off the peace party’s bones.
Seriously, if you study the Second Punic War, you will see that there was a distinct disagreement over who the “real enemy” should be. Meaning which sphere of the campaign should receive the most support. Spain, Siciliy, or Hannibal on the Italian peninsula? Hannibal thought Rome was the center of Roman gravity, that if he had enough people to destroy Rome, Carthage could win the war by forcing Rome to surrender. Other people thought that Spain was more important because Rome had attacked and were still attacking Spain.
Carthage burned because their politics divided up their forces so that Rome’s true center of gravity was never threatened and destroyed. Course Rome took advantage of this and went to Carthage, who now had to recall Hannibal, the commander they would not send reinforcements by sea to, directly back to Carthage. Bye bye Carhtage, cause now the Romans are on Carthaginian homeland soil. Wars are won by taking the fight to the enemy.
Moreover, most of the countries comprising the EU detest each other at a visceral level, and have been at each others’ throats since the fall of the Roman Empire.=oC
Europe likes creating endless wars that also become world wars. That is why America had to take away their military strength, for our own good as well as theirs. Europeans could never be allowed to conduct pre-emptive or external wars. They simply are not wise enough for it. Somehow that lead them to believing that the same applies to America. Ah, an incredible projection of psychological distress, even if their ability to project military wars of conquest have been degraded since WWII.
America wanted to make sure Germany was never a threat, to any one, after WWII. We certainly did a good job of that. Too good perhaps. And we will do just as good a job of making Iraqis into fighters extraordinaire in the Muslim world. Enough to conquer the region over 5 times. That is where true power lies.
Furthermore, the Afghan war included substantial support from a large number of NATO countries:
You must not have been readomg military inside sources, because they have already stated their opinion of “NATO” in Afghanistan.
To Gray, I think the only thing important is how feckless NATO is. Mitsu has stated a position on that, and that should be sufficient cause for disagreement. Plenty there, actually.
Ymarsakar,
There is only one way to take Democrats out of power that is consistent with the Constitution: and that is via elections. If you want to make the case that the Democrats should be defeated at the polls, that’s your democratic right. I am referring to Vince P’s suggestion that Democrats should be overthrown by force: which is, by definition, a traitorous suggestion that runs counter to the Constitution.
>What the Democrats opposed was the surveillaince of any
>information going through the United States territory,
>including internet/phone communications routed through
>the US and to other parts of the world
You’re woefully misinformed. The Bush Administration was claiming that their executive powers allowed them to do surveillance on communications including those that went through US territory *without court approval, even if the law specifically forbid it*. This is what the debate was about. The Democrats have never opposed surveillance of our enemies as duly approved by the FISA court, they simply objected to the notion that the executive branch had unlimited power to conduct domestic surveillance when they deemed it necessary for national security reasons in a time of war (and since the terror threat is ongoing, that time of war could extend indefinitely). What the Democrats were trying to do was get the surveillance done by Constitutional means.
This is the beginning and end of the dispute. The Bush Administration even tried to claim that even the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter. Such a claim is exceptionally dangerous and, naturally, a complete violation of the whole principle of checks and balances built into our system of government.
>Bush’s actions are “the beginning of dictatorship”
This is not an “axiomatic assumption.” I would say precisely the same thing if it were a Democrat who was arguing that the executive was above the law and could operate even in contravention to an order of the Supreme Court.
>They believe strength comes from exploiting others
Many Democrats think this of Republicans. I’m not sure how many Democrats you actually know personally Ymarsakar. You have a very incorrect view of what motivates them.
That’s why you get the charged with ‘traitor’—you value ‘world opinion’ more than the lives of your contrymen.
Sick. Treacherous.
Mitsu’s reasoning is rather easy to understand it here, and I think you should take the time to understand it, Gray.
He thinks that he can save American lives by working with potential allies so that Americans won’t have to do most of the heavy lifting. (Forget for a second that America has always done the heavy lifting in terms of fighting evil ideologies)
Now Benedict Arnold thought the same way, that the war in america would bring useless misery to the American people, so therefore it would be best for America to lose very fast.
Now it is not treason to believe such things. What is treasonous is to actively, directly, or indirectly aide the current enemies of America.
But what do you do if a person does not believe the UN, NATO, etc are enemies of America? What if NATO, instead of being an ally, is simply useless? Then the quesiton of treason becomes harder to answer. Especially when I see no evidence that Mitsu has contributed much to the enemies of America. He may have, but the evidence isn’t there for it. Besides, there’s far bigger fish to fry. Treason is a crime punishable by death because killing the ring leaders makes the entire coup attempt fail.
And thus it is the Democrats are the leaders or at least very near the leaders. Everybody else is a fellow traveler, like people loosely associated with terrorists in Iraq. They don’t really matter, except as a means to kill the “core” of AQ in Iraq. When the core goes, so does the rest of the organization.
Most people neither seek nor are actively aiding our enemies or even indirectly giving them comfort, Gray. Only a select few are guilty of such things, due to the clear and present evidence against them. Soros, for example, even if he isn’t an American. Michael Moore certainly. Valerie Plame, Wilson, Dick Clark, Sandy Berger for espionage certainly, and so forth. Those are the obvious ones.
There is only one way to take Democrats out of power that is consistent with the Constitution: and that is via elections.
The power of the Democrats do not come from elections. It comes from their patronage and welfare lock on Mexicans, blacks, and poor people.
Destroying their ability to farm the downtrodden for votes and as hosts, will be enough to destroy Democrat power.
Presidential vetos, Presidentian executive orders to overrule governors and nationalize their National Guard. Presidential executive orders to prosecute members of Congress and have members of Congress subjected to jail and jury. All of these powers are Constitutionally given to the President.
Even the power to suspend Habeas Corpus was enshrined by Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Jefferson enshrined the tradition of sending money to newspapers in order for political attacks on the opposition to be launched. He may not have liked it, but that is one of his traditions that he left to the Democrats.
As a clarification to Gray, I think that Mitsu believes that by making America lose, he can gain benefits for America. Rather, Mitsu believes that pre-emption makes America suffer and lose in the long term, the same as Benedict Arnold thought that fighting the war with Britain would never be a victory. Different situations and applications of belief.
This is not an “axiomatic assumption.” I would say precisely the same thing if it were a Democrat who was arguing that the executive was above the law and could operate even in contravention to an order of the Supreme Court.
That is the very definition of an axiomatic assumption, that you would make the same judgement about anyone else. That’s axiomatic, meaning based on more than just the “situation”, but on principles and assumptions about reality.
You have a very incorrect view of what motivates them.
America fought a Civil War against Democrats exploiting blacks. I really don’t think my view is as incorrect as you seem to think given the resurgence of peace Democrats.
I am referring to Vince P’s suggestion that Democrats should be overthrown by force
He didn’t suggest that. He may have to you, but what he suggests to you and what he actually believes are not the same things necessarily.
*without court approval, even if the law specifically forbid it*
It has precedence, Lincoln did the same thing.
What the Democrats were trying to do was get the surveillance done by Constitutional means.
Which means following Lincoln’s example.
As a clarification to Gray, I think that Mitsu believes that by making America lose, he can gain benefits for America. Rather, Mitsu believes that pre-emption makes America suffer and lose in the long term, the same as Benedict Arnold thought that fighting the war with Britain would never be a victory. Different situations and applications of belief.
Bad editing.
As a clarification to Gray, I don’t think that Mitsu believes that he can gain benefits for America by making her lose faster.
It’s not simply that I think we should work with allies (though obviously that makes our lives easier) it’s also that I believe we should go after our enemies with much greater force than we have. I don’t see the Bush Administration doing this. I am absolutely in favor of the strongest possible defense of this country. I simply think the Bush Administration, while I don’t think they’re trying to destroy America on purpose — has done a very poor job over the last several year protecting America.
There are many on the far left who simply are nervous about going to war for moral reasons. Some who criticize the US no matter what we do. Those represent a tiny fraction of people and not even most Democrats. I am certainly not one of those people. I am for a robust defense of this country. I just happen to believe the Democrats would, on balance, do a better job than Republicans. However — I have supported Republican strategy in the past — the first Gulf War, for instance — when many friends of mine on the left opposed it.
To my mind, one of the people I admire the most with respect to thinking clearly about American security issues is Richard Clarke. He has a keen eye especially regarding counter-terrorism and he criticized the Bush Administration for doing far too little to protect the country against terrorists. I think he was right before and I think the Bush Administration is still not doing nearly enough.
Regarding comparisons to Benedict Arnold — I think that’s a pretty low blow, Ymarsakar, though I’m glad you at least realize I do not want defeat for the United States. Neither do the Democrats, however. Arnold, however, DID want defeat for the United States. I simply want us to refocus on fighting the people who attacked us, because I believe they remain a threat and are regrouping now, and I don’t think we ought to let that happen.
History will determine, of course, which of us is right.
I just read your last post — regarding Democrats during the Civil War. At that time, Democrats were a completely different party from what they are today — naturally, I support the Republican Party of that time against the Democrats of that period. The modern Democratic Party started around the time of FDR and completed its transformation around the time of Kennedy. It’s no longer the same party by any stretch of the imagination.
>He didn’t suggest that
Well, he did.
>Presidential executive orders
Okay, let’s see what happens to President Bush if he tried to do these things. If you think that would lead to a resurgence of the Republican Party at the polls, I think you’d be in for a bit of a surprise.
The modern Democratic Party started around the time of FDR and completed its transformation around the time of Kennedy.
If you are trying to claim that the modern Democrat party was started by FDR and finished by the time of Kennedy, then that would be a rather false claim. The Democrat party we have now is not Kennedy’s party nor even FDR’s.
Well, he did.
You don’t even have a quote, so it is all hearsay.
This is what you are basing your entire argument on, you know. That Vince said what you said he said. Knock that off and you don’t have anything.
Okay, let’s see what happens to President Bush if he tried to do these things. If you think that would lead to a resurgence of the Republican Party at the polls, I think you’d be in for a bit of a surprise.
The Democrats have proven that they can obstruct and otherwise collapse the Constitution through the powers given to the Judiciary and the Legislature. It is not too much to expect that the President can use the powers given to him by the Constitution to repair such damage.
I think that’s a pretty low blow, Ymarsakar,
How is that a low blow to say that Benedict Arnold believed, erroneously, in what was best for America, which is comparable to your beliefs, Mitsu?
The question of treason is a legal and a matter of loyalty. It is not, quite, a matter of philosophy.
It’s not simply that I think we should work with allies (though obviously that makes our lives easier) it’s also that I believe we should go after our enemies with much greater force than we have.-M
To sum up what I think Gray and Occam and I think, we tend to favor the proposal that what you mean by going after our enemies would be precisely the wrong things to do, Mitsu. Not in the general sense of “should we attack our enemies”. Obviously those that advocate pre-emption believe there is an enemy we should pre-empt. No, the disagreement is that you think AQ is an enemy we can simply deal with after the fact, irrespective of the global world. Yes, you mention global opinion, but that is not the same thing as dealing strategically with the global world. The actual world with actual people in it. Such as Iran and Iraq.
What this ends up with is that we believe that in order to defeat not only AQ but all of America’s enemies, requires an investment in the Middle East. Whether it was Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc didn’t really matter after the fact. What matters is that we must have a base in one of those countries, and we must learn from our enemies by fighting them.
You somehow think that we should concentrate our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that our enemies will then ignore our flanks and be dealt with if we strike at their source of strength. But Pakistan is only where Bin Laden hides out in, it is not the strength of America’s enemies. The strength of America’s enemies is present in the promise of Islam that those that die fighting the infidel will achieve paradise.
If we believed that you would make Pakistan into another Iraq, we wouldn’t have a problem with your proposals. But it is precisely because you doubt the strategy of Iraq, not just the tactics used there, that we don’t think your strategy for Pakistan would work.
It is not just about which target should we focus more upon, it is about an entirely different strategic vision for America. One that is completely separated from yours, Mitsu.
I am absolutely in favor of the strongest possible defense of this country.
What a person considers good defense is based upon his or her personal philosophy.
If a person believes in pacifism, which you don’t, then his idea of defense will be much different than a US Marine sniper’s idea about what constitutes the best defense.
Such is the situation we have here with you, Mitsu.
Those represent a tiny fraction of people and not even most Democrats. I am certainly not one of those people. I am for a robust defense of this country. I just happen to believe the Democrats would, on balance, do a better job than Republicans.
It is not that we, or at least I, really care whether you support the Democrats politically or not. Neo once supported the Democrats, but what matters is what Neo believes philosophically. She believes in the same, or a very similar, philosophy that I do. But your philosophy is not the same as mine, Mitsu, not even close. And I would assume that it is very different from Gray and Occam’s as well on a fundamental level.
You may not be “one of those” people, Mitsu, but you are no more different philosophically to us than the far Left are to us.
Given what you believe, of course you believe that Democrats would, on balance, do a better job. All things flow from such beliefs. They don’t follow from paying attention to the particular details of the “situation”, which you mentioned as being part of the solution-boxset concerning how to solve foreign problems.
It’s good to have the facts, yes, but what we do with those facts depend upon our philosophical beliefs. Not the other way around.
I think he was right before and I think the Bush Administration is still not doing nearly enough.
Given that Clark did a fait accompli on Bush through releasing Saudis without Presidential authority, I would think that Clark should believe that the Administration wasn’t doing enough of what Clark wanted.
Since the Democrats’ agenda is the defeat of the United States, I feel the military has the obligation to protect the sustainability of our Constituation and our lives by taking action against the internal enemies.
It’s a shame the Dems have to push things so far as to create a situation that would require such a horrible drastic thing but there are worst things… like death.
>Since the Democrats’ agenda is the defeat of the United States
That is just ridiculous, but I won’t bother arguing the point with you further, Vince P, since we’ll never agree on that. I do suggest you actually get to know some real, live Democrats, and see whether they love their country less than you do. You may be surprised at what you find.
>The actual world with actual people in it
That’s the same world I am talking about as well, Ymarsakar. We shall see, I suppose, who is right, in the long run. All I can say is, so far, the evidence I can see in the real world with real people in it is in favor of the predictions of my “philosophy”. Perhaps you’ll turn out to be right, in the end — but I sincerely doubt it. History, I think, is on my side in this — there are always those who believe in preventive war (such as the Germans who came after Bismarck, and got their country into WWI and WWII, only to be ignominously defeated both times), and it rarely if ever works.
You may think it’s going to work this time — but I disagree.
History, as Neo says, will judge us all, I suppose, in the end.
I live in Chicago… I suggest you go out and find some real Democrats. I know them all too well.
>Chicago
So, when you go out your door, you think most of the people around you, in Chicago, are hoping for the defeat of America? You seriously think that?
To paraphrase Y, with whom I completely agree, our perception is that the Democratic Party would view an American victory with dismay, and an American humiliation with delight. This may be because they can turn the latter into electoral victory, whereas the former is an electoral disaster, or it may be for more profound philosophical reasons. No matter.
That perception is summarized by saying that the Democratic Party’s agenda is an American defeat, which it is. That bald summary may be unpalatable, but the connection between American defeat and Democratic electoral prospects is undeniable. Loyal Americans consider that perspective treasonous. More to the point, in their hearts, Democrats consider it treasonous too, which is why they’re so sensitive to accusations of treason.
Democrats cheered our (initial) victory in Afghanistan, and our victory against Milosevic, and our victory in the first Gulf War, etc. That things are going poorly in Iraq is somewhat different: most Democrats think that war was a mistake, one which either is hurting our security or hurting others without helping us. That things are going poorly does vindicate those of us who opposed the war, so there’s a natural reaction: yes, it’s just as we thought it would be. But upon sober reflection no Democratic leader could possibly wish Iraq to devolve further. To some degree the current Democratic push to withdraw is simply a desire to put an end to this war which they thought was a mistake (or came to believe it was) — note that most Americans agree with this at this point. I don’t think any of these people are “traitorous” — they simply want a nightmare to end. What they don’t realize is that we can’t withdraw too quickly. That’s why I oppose precipitous withdrawal, even though I opposed the war in the first place.
But Democrats calling for withdrawal are not traitors. They believe we are wasting money and American lives needlessly. They want to refocus our efforts elsewhere (Obama makes this case far more strongly than others, in my view). I think they’re wrong to push withdrawal, but I agree with them that we need to draw down our forces as soon as possible.
(i.e., as soon as possible: but not as soon as most Democrats want — in particular I thought they were wrong to oppose the surge, as I’ve said many times before).
Democrats cheered our (initial) victory in Afghanistan, and our victory against Milosevic, and our victory in the first Gulf War, etc.
They did nothing of the kind, Mitsu; that’s pure revisionist history. Before the incredible success in Afghanistan, Democrats were mumbling darkly about the British and Soviet disasters there.
>Democrats were mumbling darkly about the British and
>Soviet disasters there.
You’re confusing Democrats with leftists. Sure, guys like Noam Chomsky, etc., were predicting disaster in Afghanistan, but the vast majority of Democrats supported the Afghan war. I certainly did, enthusiastically, and most of the Democrats I know did. It was obvious we should invade Afghanistan. They were close allies of the people who attacked us, they provided them safe haven and allowed them to create terrorist training camps.
The sad thing is, political discourse in this country has gotten so polarized that people of differing political persuasions don’t seem to ever talk to each others. It’s amazing to me you think most Democrats were opposed to the Afghan war. That war had the broad support of Americans across the political spectrum, the criticisms of the far left notwithstanding. How could you not know this? The only explanation I can come up with is that you don’t talk to Democrats very often.
Just look at the votes: the vast majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate voted to support the Afghan war, and nearly all elected Democrats continue to support it to this day — in fact, as I keep saying, if there is criticism from Democrats it’s that we have diverted attention away from that region to Iraq. There’s never been general Democratic opposition to the war in Afghanistan: that is simply a fact.
Mitsu, OK, fair enough.
For me the distinction between leftists and Democrats is a difficult and subtle one to draw. Democrats need to disown leftists explicitly, just as moderate Muslims, if any such there be, need to disown Islamic terrorists. Until and unless that happens, it’s natural to presume that the more extreme elements are speaking for the group.
I’d presumed any Democratic support for the Afghan war as an after the fact rationalization when it wasn’t a disaster, but I may have been wrong.
FWIW, and again I may be wrong, but examine your views on this carefully. I suspect that many of the Congressional Democrats holding forth are either closet leftists and/or mendicants happy to adopt any viewpoint that advances their personal aggrandizement, the country be damned.
I know it’s hard for you guys to believe, but most Democrats are patriotic, pro-America, and moderate, just like most Republicans (save Vince P who wants to overthrow the Constitution by force, as he restates above). They have different ideas about how to govern the country but they’re not crazed lunatics. The funny thing is, this board is the mirror image of liberal boards where I hang out and everyone thinks Republicans are out to destroy the country, Bush should be impeached, etc. (though I rarely hear anyone call for a military coup, I suppose that’s something of a first for me reading an American blog). It’s crazy. I have Democratic and Republican friends and family and the fact is, there isn’t a huge difference between them. They’re all decent people who want the best for America, as far as I’m concerned.
As for Congressional Democrats — they’re politicians. I mean, it’s the nature of the game that many of them pander to public opinion. But closet leftists? I have leftist friends (with whom I disagree more than I agree — though I have to say, in their defense, that while they usually oppose the US no matter what we do — whether it is a Democratic or Republican president doesn’t seem to matter to them — not even they want Islamists to take over the country) and I can tell you Democrats are not leftists. There’s really no political party in the US except perhaps the Green Party that actually promotes an agenda that’s “leftist” in any real sense of the word. Most leftists disavow both the Democratic and Republican parties.
(When I say I rarely hear anyone call for a military coup — I mean I have never heard that on any liberal board. Vince P gets an award for the most extreme political position I have read on any board I frequent.)
I just ran across this info… oh man does it get me steamed… to think that this great country is in grip of people like this just sickens and depresses me.
The article is much longer than the bits i’m pasting
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={E1D5B7F6-3C76-46C0-9A0B-C88A7BA24543}
One can learn a great deal about the values and core beliefs of a political figure by taking note of the people he or she assigns to key government posts. Consider, for instance, what we can learn about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the basis of her February 8th appointment of Joseph Onek to be her Senior Counsel. “This is a critical time for the Congress and the country,” Onek said following his appointment, “and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to return to government service and work on behalf of the American people.”
But who is Joseph Onek, and how exactly does he define working “on behalf of the American people”? A not insignificant clue is provided by the fact that Onek, a 1967 graduate of Yale Law School, is currently a Senior Policy Analyst for George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI), one of the world’s major financiers of the political far Left. OSI is a member of the benignly named Peace and Security Funders Group, an association of more than 50 foundations that earmark a sizable portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror in several interrelated ways:
-by characterizing the United States as an aggressively militaristic nation that exploits vulnerable populations all over the globe
-by accusing the U.S. of having provoked, through its unjust policies and actions, the terror attacks against it, and consequently casting those attacks as self-defensive measures taken in response to American transgressions
-by depicting America’s military and legislative actions against terror as unjustified, extreme, and immoral
-by steadfastly defending the civil rights and liberties of terrorists whose ultimate aim is to facilitate the annihilation of not just the United States, but all of Western civilization
-by striving to eradicate America’s national borders and institute a system of mass, unregulated migration into and out of the United States – thereby rendering all distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants anachronistic, and making it much easier for aspiring terrorists to enter the U.S. Toward this end, OSI has poured rivers of money into the coffers of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, theNational Immigration Law Center, the National Immigration Forum, the National Council of La Raza, and the American Immigration Law Foundation.
OSI’s money is further apportioned to a far-flung variety of leftist groups, including:
-radical feminist organizations that portray America as an irredeemably sexist nation and consider taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to be an inalienable right for all women (the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, the Ms. Foundation for Women, Planned Parenthood, Catholics for a Free Choice, and NARAL Pro-Choice America)
-members of the Legal Left, which, in the name of civil liberties, seeks to dismantle virtually all government safeguards against terrorism (the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National Lawyers Guild)
-organizations that, under the revered banner of human rights, direct a grossly disproportionate share of their criticism at the United States (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, and Human Rights First)
-political organizing groups and think tanks of the Left (America Coming Together, the Center for American Progress, the Brennan Center for Justice, MoveOn.org, the Center for Community Change, People for the American Way, the Urban Institute, and Alliance for Justice)
-anti-prison organizations seeking to transform the criminal-justice system’s current “punitive” model into one that is “rehabilitative” (the Sentencing Project and the Prison Moratorium Project)
Onek serves as Director of CP’s Liberty and Security Initiative (LSI), which flatly rejects most of America’s post-9/11 homeland security efforts as misguided “government proposals that [have] jeopardized civil liberties.” Specifically, LSI:
-opposes President Bush’s decision to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
-opposes “the use of profiling” in law-enforcement and intelligence work alike
-holds that state and local law-enforcement agencies should be uninvolved in pursuing suspected terrorists
-opposes government efforts to “conduct surveillance of religious and political organizations”
-opposes “increased federal and state wiretap authority and increased video surveillance”
-calls for the creation of a commission “to investigate the abuse of people held at detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay” (“When you think about it,” Onek says, “Guantanamo became a symbol around the world for American disrespect for law.”)
During his June 21 testimony, Onek also expressed deep concern about “the danger that the government will use the information it gathers and shares in ways that unfairly discriminate against Muslim Americans.” “Muslims will appear disproportionately on the government’s computer screens,” he explained, “because they are the people most likely (naturally and innocently) to visit, telephone and send money to places like Pakistan and Iraq. Inevitably, government officials will learn more about Muslim Americans than about other Americans.” He predicted that this would lead to the injustice of Muslims being disproportionately caught violating immigration laws, and that “[t]his unfairness will breed discontent in the Muslim community and undermine the fight against terrorism.”
=========
Who knows how many of these Quislings are in our govt… COUP COUP COUP
“Democrats need to disown leftists explicitly, just as moderate Muslims, if any such there be, need to disown Islamic terrorists.”
Why do moderate Muslims, who by definition don’t support, let alone participate in, terrorism, need to disown it?
No one should or does demand that American soldiers, for example, “disown” the obscene and fatal torture that took place at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Nor should they.
The American majority, and the vast majority of soldiers, oppose the kind of sadistic acts committed by a tiny handful of, possibly rogue, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Be it the torture incidents or the rapes and killings of civilians. Therefore, it’s preposterous to ask them to “disown” those despicable acts.
Fortunately, we don’t hear many people demanding this.
Tellingly, the irrational meme that moderate Muslims haven’t or don’t or didn’t or won’t “condemn” whatever the lastest extremist outrage is a standard canard repeatedly ad nauseum across the conservative media.
Not only is there no rational requirement for moderates to comment on the acts of extremists, there is, in fact, a mountain of evidence that moderate Muslims do speak out and fight against and work to subvert extremists day-in, day-out from within the Muslim world.
Governments of the largest Muslim nations are all actively suppressing Islamic extremists–many brutally–and have the support of the public in doing so.
Conservatives who spend their time bouncing from Michelle Malkin to Fox News Channel to the National Review and Rush Limbaugh, then have the gall to complain that they haven’t heard enough apologizing from moderate Muslims.
Yet those sources focus exclusively on the most extreme elements of Muslim society. The only mention they ever make of moderates is to either question their existence or to make anonymous demands to condemn this or that atrocity.
Hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims are at the front of the front lines in the war against Islamic terrorism. Many are bravely standing up and doing whatever they can to stop the extremists. Many more are just trying to put bread on the table, school books in their childrens hands and stay alive to enjoy the same things we all do.
Just as surely there are millions of Muslims who, whether or not they actually participate in terrorism, support it in one way or another. These people should of course be called on to disown their hateful philosophy.
It is the oldest, most common variety of bigotry to smear an entire religious or ethnic group with the acts of the bad minority in their midst.
Know this: only moderate Islam can defeat radical Islam.
To the extent that the war on extremism is shamelessly propagandized as a battle between Islam itself and Christianity, the extremists are able to win converts to their cause.
“Democrats need to disown leftists explicitly, just as moderate Muslims, if any such there be, need to disown Islamic terrorists.”
>Why do moderate Muslims, who by definition don’t support, let alone participate in, terrorism, need to disown it?
It is not by definition that a “moderate” does not support or do terrorism. It’s rather unclear what moderate means. In fact many Muslims are offended by the label “moderate”… that implies they are not sufficiently Muslim they say, and who are you (anyone) to judge their piety?
The default teachings of Islam command the Ummah to do violence against the Kuffar, thus their silence is acceptance.
If the religion is to be constrained then the first step is for Muslims to actually vocalize that terrorism is no longer acceptible. Nothing will be fixed if no one has the obligation to speak out about it.
>No one should or does demand that American soldiers, for example, “disown” the obscene and fatal torture that took place at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Nor should they.
That’s because we have a chain of command and a system of law that punishes violations of the standards, thus we dont need vigilantes.
Your comparsion does not fit. There is no comparasion to the lawbreaking done by a soldier of a modern State and terrorism done in the name of a non-centralized religion.
>The American majority, and the vast majority of soldiers, oppose the kind of sadistic acts committed by a tiny handful of, possibly rogue, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Be it the torture incidents or the rapes and killings of civilians. Therefore, it’s preposterous to ask them to “disown” those despicable acts.
So who will dissuade the terrorists? How will they and their future recruits ever be disuaded from believing they are doing exactly what Allah commands from them?
>Fortunately, we don’t hear many people demanding this.
That’s the problem… the problem is much much larger than you think… The silence is deadly.
>Tellingly, the irrational meme that moderate Muslims haven’t or don’t or didn’t or won’t “condemn” whatever the lastest extremist outrage is a standard canard repeatedly ad nauseum across the conservative media.
What is ad nauseum is your indifference and complaceny.
Watch this short video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ
and tell us again how much this silence is no problem… meanwhile the suffering of many goes on unchallenged by political ideologues like you who see nothing about what the Islamists do to criticize yet find enough about “conservative media” to get you to write about.
>Not only is there no rational requirement for moderates to comment on the acts of extremists, there is, in fact, a mountain of evidence that moderate Muslims do speak out and fight against and work to subvert extremists day-in, day-out from within the Muslim world.
So on the one hand you say there is no need for them to speak up, yet on the other you poiint out they are. Why dont you tell them to shut up? They’re wasting their time according to every statement you made prior to this one.
In any case, not enough of them are speaking out.. and the ones that are need support.
>Governments of the largest Muslim nations are all actively suppressing Islamic extremists—many brutally—and have the support of the public in doing so.
That’s why every time there is an election in places that have elections, the Islamists gain. The govts crush Islamist movements only out of self-interest for their own power, for no other reason.
>Conservatives who spend their time bouncing from Michelle Malkin to Fox News Channel to the National Review and Rush Limbaugh, then have the gall to complain that they haven’t heard enough apologizing from moderate Muslims.
No one wants their apologizies.. I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion.. I suspect you invented it.
What is being criticized and maybe this is what you’re talking about , are the Islamists who disguise themselves as alledged Moderates, who are nothing more than apologists for terrorists and who’s function here in the US is to get people to shut up and not talk about Islam.
The true Moderates need to speak out against that too.. It’s their responsiblity to contribute to the deradicalization of thier religion and also to keep this country safe (of those muslims who live here)
>Yet those sources focus exclusively on the most extreme elements of Muslim society.
No kidding.. they’re the problem! It doesnt make much sense to focus on things that don’t merit focus.
>The only mention they ever make of moderates is to either question their existence or to make anonymous demands to condemn this or that atrocity.
That’s right… where are they? We see CAIR on every cable news show when they want to shut someone up… where are the so-called multitude of moderates to tell CAIR that it doesnt speak for them?
>Hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims are at the front of the front lines in the war against Islamic terrorism. Many are bravely standing up and doing whatever they can to stop the extremists. Many more are just trying to put bread on the table, school books in their childrens hands and stay alive to enjoy the same things we all do.
Well they need to step up and do more… a good example to follow is the Awakening movement of Sunni Moslems in Iraq who finally had enough.
>Just as surely there are millions of Muslims who, whether or not they actually participate in terrorism, support it in one way or another. These people should of course be called on to disown their hateful philosophy.
>It is the oldest, most common variety of bigotry to smear an entire religious or ethnic group with the acts of the bad minority in their midst.
It is the most common and boring display of sloppy Leftist thought which reaches conclusions not suported by evidence.. Obviously by labelling certain Muslims “moderates” and others “jihadis” etc, that the “entire religion” is not being smeared.
And in any case why is Islam, the religion, exempt from critical inspection?
Ive spent years studying it, and it’s a system of evil, a violent dangerous political/military ideology disguised in the trappings of a religion.
That’s Islam, the religion.
Muslims.. the people, span the entire spectrum of human experience. Most have no intention of doing any sort of violence but that isn’t because of Islam, it is in spite of it.
So it’s you who are painting the Muslims all with one brush when you transfer other people’s view of Islam to mean that’s how all Muslims are viewed.
People like me who studied Islam a lot don’t need people like you to remind us of the variety of Muslims that exist.. we are more than aware. So it’s you who labels all Muslims (the people) with the criticisms that are made against Islam (the religon)… Since it’s the violent parts of Islam that are critcized, the only Muslims who would then be “guilty” of the wrong-doings would be those subset of Muslims who hold to those views… which automatically means that we’re not attacking all Muslims.
I find it annoying to have to type “Of course not all Muslims want to behead you, only 37299341 of them do” in every discussion i have about this because some Leftist lacks the sophistication to understand the level generality that such discussions dwell in. It’s like “duh” .. no one ever siad ALL muslims beleive in ALL things the same.
There is no moderate Islam… Islam is Islam.
No matter how much time goes by and the doctrines of Jihad are ignored, they are always there in Islam for someone to rediscover and rekindle the flame.. just as was done in the 1920s.
Islam is about SUBMISSION… Not Critical analysis and challenging methologies… it’s about being a slave to Allah. It’s not about thinking for oneself.. it’s not about self-fullfilment.. it’s about the destruction of the self in service of the Ummah, the group.
At the black heart of Islam is the mandate: Relentless war untill ALL religion on Earth is Allah’s and all knees bend as the world proclaims there is no god but Allah and Mohemmed is his prophet.
I dont know how much you know.. but know this… Muslims today are confident that this is the era where they will thier goal of global sharia.
Their major task first is the establishment of the Khalifah.
Only a rightful Khalif has the authority to start a war of conquest.
The Khalifah is what all the groups are working toward.. they don’t all agree on how to get there , which is why some of them fight with each other in regards to tactics..but they all want the same thing.
They recongize that the United States will not let a Khalifah get established and then start invading everyone .. so they know that the US at some point must be defeated so that their goals can be met.
Since they view thier mission as one from Allah and that it is good, they therefore see any opposition to that goal as evil. As we would stand in thier way, that means we are evil. We represent Satan to them.. Allah’s will is opposed by Satan, thus they view thier goal being oppsoed by us as Satan’s proxy.
What I find really repugnant about your statement is that you agree with them.. by claiming that somehow we’re the responsible party for this war and that we are propagandizing it as Christians vs Islam is to confirm the view of the enemy himself.
He looks at idiots like you and says “Look Mustafa, even the Kuffar admits it… the Kuffar is the aggressor.. they are at war against us.. come let us fight them.. like we were going to do anyway .. by the way my wife has been in her black sack all week without a shower and i need soem action… turn around”
“Why do moderate Muslims, who by definition don’t support, let alone participate in, terrorism, need to disown it?”
The problem is that they do support terrorism. Terrorists don’t just appear, huzzah! like magic, out of the sands of the desert, just like bombs don’t grow on trees like dates. The canard that “killing terrorists makes more terrorists” can only be true if it is assumed that “moderate” Muslims are a continuous source of new terrorists, that can be relied upon whenever the terrorists’ numbers are reduced by warfare.
Cursory research shows this to be the case.
Well, well. Looks like enough canards in this thread alone to make quite a flock. But let’s see if we can line up a couple at least:
– Earnest, boyish Mitsu seems to think that the Democratic Party was somehow born again under FDR and “completed its transformation around the time of Kennedy”. No, alas, it didn’t. With the usual nod of thanks to the exceptions, the Democratic Party has always been, and remains, the party of political opportunism, preying upon popular bigotries and fears as a means to power any time it can. But the modern Democratic Party really owes its origins to the traumatizing events of the late sixties, which allowed its left wing to gain long-term power, particularly in the area of foreign affairs, and which then doomed it to years in the political wilderness (the brief Carter interlude notwithstanding). Today, of course, it’s turned itself into a dog being wagged by its Soros-financed tail (thanks, VP, for the article & quotes), as we see from the likes of the Kos convention and the “General Betray-Us” ads, etc., etc.
Yes, in a manner somewhat analogous to the many decent but cowed “moderate” muslims, there are a great many decent and moderate Democrats, who simply differ over policies, as those muslims differ over beliefs. But too many are unwilling to differentiate themselves from the grasping opportunists and loud extremists in their midst, whether out of confusion, weariness, ignorance, or just plain fear (of, for example, the kind of ostracism in such circles that comes along with the dreaded “neocon” label). Until and unless they do so, however, they will continue to be tainted with the color and odor of those who claim to speak in their name.
– Which brings me to dour, truculent McLovin, and the old “only moderate Islam can defeat radical Islam” hope. If that were really true, McL, it might be a good idea to start practicing prayers in the direction of Mecca now. First, because “moderate” muslims have a good deal more to fear from their own extremists than ostracism, and second because it’s not clear at this point that there is a stable “moderate” position within the great majority of Islamic cultures, in any case — only a relatively more patient or less patient position. This last is because it’s not yet clear that Islam as a whole is both willing and able to live in peace with the modern world (and all that that implies).
Still, there have been a few recent instances of muslim moderates actually taking on the fanatics and winning — in Iraq, particularly, where those moderates were protected and enabled by the very “surge” so many Democrats prophesied would never work, and continue to try to wreck! So who knows — given a little more time, we may find even the moderate Democrats summoning the courage to take on and throw out the MoveOn bullies in their midst. Hopefully sometime before pigs grow wings.
A moderate Muslim is moderately Muslim. That means between the violent nutcases on one end and the Muslim equivalent of the Christian who shows up in church on Christmas and Easter on the other.
IOW, a “moderate” Muslim is “moderate” solely with regard to Islam.
Whether moderate Muslim is moderate in the sense which interests us is a separate question, quite distinct and not at all related.
Points: About ten percent of Indonesians polled thought bombing the Bali night club was a good idea to defend the faith. That being, the faith was killing Christians in East Timor until stopped by the UN led by Australians. That was also the reason for blowing up the UN mission in Baghdad. So stopping a slo-mo genocide impressed ten percent of Indonesians as an attack on the faith.
About twelve percent of Canadian Muslims polled thought the plot to blow up Parliament was a good idea.
Why are Saudi-funded wahhabi mosques in the US not empty? Who is in them? What does that mean?
When a Muslim in Tulsa wrote a letter to the editor saying Islam must eschew violence, he was thrown out of his mosque and threatened with violence. Are the people in his mosque “moderate Muslims” or “moderates” in the sense we would prefer? Is there an exodus from the mosque of moderate people who are starting a new congregation? Dean Esmay banned me for asking. Anybody know?
If moderate Muslims in the US are moderate in the sense we would like, what are they doing?
Where do our domestic nutcases come from?
Some, perhaps many, are getting caught before getting going. Are moderates dropping the dime?
Do we know?
Outside of retroactively reading terrorists out of the faith (“Beslan is not Islam”), what is Islam doing? Any Not In Our Name marches after, say, the London bombings?
There was a Muslim soldier reported on in the Detroit papers who was such a good American and a good soldier that when he went home to Dearborn his neighbors called him an Uncle Tom. There’s more to that story than the example of a Muslim soldier in the US Army.
It’s funny that on a board where one member openly calls for a military overthrow of our democratic institutions, people here call for moderate Democrats (the vast majority) to “disown” the positions of leftists (most of whom aren’t even Democrats, who attack both Democrats and Republicans as being tools of corporate power — and while I’m not a leftist I actually sympathize with some of those criticisms, frankly.) No one here has criticized Vince P for his views, yet moderate Democrats are supposed to disown the far left?
There are extremists in both parties. There are Republicans who openly call for the establishment of a theocratic Christian state, which I imagine perhaps some of you posting here might even agree with, but which to my mind is a wholly un-American, even traitorous idea which violates everything the Founding Fathers stood for, not to mention would require an overturning of the First Amendment. The fact is you guys are focused only on extremism in others but fail to even realize there is extremism in your own midst.
I personally am opposed to extremism on all sides — I can’t think of any extremists on the right or left, domestic or foreign, whom I agree with.
Mitsu: I personally am opposed to extremism on all sides
Sometimes, Mitsu, the middle of the road is a safe and reasonable place to be, and sometimes it isn’t — in those times, not only is it a discreditable attempt to hide under a blanket of banalities and cliches from having to make hard decisions or choices (metaphors getting mixed, but you get the idea), it’s also a place where you can get you run over in either direction.
That’s not to say I support anyone who wants to prosecute all Democrats for treason, and certainly not anyone who hopes the military will stage a coup — if the people themselves won’t save the country, after all, the military certainly can’t and won’t. But, life being short, we need to focus on scenarios, hopes, and wishes that are a more immediate concern, and, despite the paranoid fantasies of some on the left, those kinds of blog comments are too unlikely and unserious to merit much handwringing. On the other hand, the insidious spread of far left defeatist and even seditious (see, e.g., the Pilger piece linked earlier) opinion within one of the two major political parties in this country is a concern that’s both real and immediate. I don’t say it’s general yet — the success of the surge to date is having its expected effect on a party that is driven by opportunism — and I certainly don’t say there isn’t an important difference between principled disagreement over a war and mere defeatism or worse. But I do say that the combination of a leftist ideology virulently hostile to the capitalist West in general, and a political party willing to prey upon war fatigue as a route to power, is a nasty mix, and badly needs exposure at every opportunity. It may sound nice and “balanced” to be opposed to extremism on all sides, but it’s more important to be opposed to the bad extremism that is the immediate threat.
Perhaps you’ll turn out to be right, in the end – but I sincerely doubt it. History, I think, is on my side in this
Everyone thinks God is on their side in a war. That is just how humans think.
However, history is only on the side of the victors, given that the defeated often times no longer exist anymore.
History, as Neo says, will judge us all, I suppose, in the end.
So long as you are alive and free, yes, it will.
Democrats cheered our (initial) victory in Afghanistan
Victory is the only thing that justifies warfare. When the Demos thought America and Bush was winning, they shut up. When they thought people were losing, they started kicking the man when he was down. This is how humans behave, Mitsu. There is nothing surprising or new about it.
And it doesn’t mean the Democrats think they can win by making America lose, either. It just means that victory quiets the opportunists and traitors, while defeat or uncertainty brings out the seditionists and ambitious generals.
most Democrats think that war was a mistake
All wars are mistakes. If humans did everything right, there wouldn’t be a war, is that not correct?
If you want war and if you want to beat the other guy, then you will have to accept making mistakes as well. Only a utopian socialist and perfectionist, like the members of the modern Left and Democrat party, would favor perfection on Earth to any improvement in the lives of real human beings in Iraq and America.
That things are going poorly does vindicate those of us who opposed the war, so there’s a natural reaction:
General Lee was in favor of freeing slaves, yet when his state went to war, he put his all behind it. Such were the men and women who built America up to what she currently is. You think the Democrats were anywhere close to Lee’s model of duty and honor?
note that most Americans agree with this at this point. I don’t think any of these people are “traitorous” – they simply want a nightmare to end.-M
Your analysis of “most Americans” and Democrats are the same as your analyses of NATO, European countries, and the international community. Which is to say, flawed.
That’s why I oppose precipitous withdrawal, even though I opposed the war in the first place.
You’re not in office Mitsu, nor have you been offered power, wealth, and status if you can make Bush lose the war in Iraq.
Obviously you would have more reason and motivation to not want precipitous withdrawal. Which just goes to show why people use the phrase “political animals”. They are not exactly the same as homo sapien animals.
They believe we are wasting money and American lives needlessly.
They believe the resources would be better spent on welfare for Muslims, Mexicans, and blacks. Just because such socialist policies would bring them to power, doesn’t mean that their alliance with the Islamic jihad isn’t traitorous.
Until and unless that happens, it’s natural to presume that the more extreme elements are speaking for the group.-OC
Organized violence by the few can control 10-100 times their number. Even more than that, sometimes.
I’d presumed any Democratic support for the Afghan war as an after the fact rationalization when it wasn’t a disaster, but I may have been wrong.
The situation wasn’t ripe in 2001-3 for Democrat dissent and sabotage. As things went bad, the Democrats made a choice. Now they support Afghanistan because they want to stop fighting in Iraq, so that the enemies of Iraq can conquer it and then send forces to kill Afghanis in Afghanistan. That is how the Democrats support the war in Afghanistan, Occam.
The funny thing is, this board is the mirror image of liberal boards where I hang out and everyone thinks Republicans are out to destroy the country, Bush should be impeached, etc.
Obviously, as with mutually exclusive philosophies, only one philosophy can be right, both can’t be. There is a small chance that both philosophies are wrong, but then America would be screwed anyways if that was what was going on.
They’re all decent people who want the best for America, as far as I’m concerned.
That’s what the Athenians thought, but they were the ones that used resentment to try and execute Socrates, one of the greatest philosopher of the Greek world.
I can tell you Democrats are not leftists.
They don’t have to be. All they have to be are members of the Left. The real Leftists are very happy to order the flock around.
Who knows how many of these Quislings are in our govt… COUP COUP COUP
Executions of traitors would prevent the need for a coup, Vince. Especially since Democrats do not yet control the Presidency.
No one should or does demand that American soldiers, for example, “disown” the obscene and fatal torture that took place at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Nor should they.
Given that they already did, you’re just on a country road now.
Therefore, it’s preposterous to ask them to “disown” those despicable acts.
Given that the Muslim world promotes fathers that kill their daughters, it is quite a different thing than the United States Army not liking Hollywood parties going on at Abu Ghraib.
>middle of the road
It’s probably too difficult to explain my views in a forum like this, but I understand where you’re coming from Sally, but it really doesn’t describe my political position. I am very passionate about my viewpoint, and when I support and oppose different policies I do so with a great deal of enthusiasm. It just happens to be the case that sometimes I end up fervently supporting a position the Democrats support, and sometimes a position Republicans support, and sometimes I have an opinion that neither party explicitly supports.
For example, while I do believe one should go to war reluctantly (not because I am a pacifist, but because I believe war is a very dangerous business and can backfire horribly — so you’d better do it reluctantly) — but when you do go to war, you should do it to win. Thus, I opposed the Iraq war — but even more, I opposed the half-assed way we went about it. IF we were going to go to war with Iraq I felt we should do so with far more troops, far more planning, particularly for the post-war reconstruction. So I totally agree with your comment about being run over if you’re in the middle of the road: but I think the Iraq war is a perfect example of this: we went to war, but half-heartedly.
So I suppose I categorically reject your characterization of my views as “avoiding making the hard choices.” I supported the Afghan war totally and wholeheartedly, and I had arguments with my leftist friends (who, despite what people think on this board, even though their views are politically extreme — are also idealistic people who want to help the world and certainly aren’t wanting the US to be destroyed) in which I strongly supported the Afghan war and disputed their view that it was both a mistake and would end in disaster. I had no reticence whatsoever to “making the hard choice” at least when it comes to my political view and what I tried to persuade my fellow citizens about.
But when it came to the Iraq war, I came to a different conclusion, and have argued as forcefully for that as I did the opposite with the Afghan war.
But when it came to the Iraq war, I came to a different conclusion, and have argued as forcefully for that as I did the opposite with the Afghan war.
Okay, fair enough. I take a different view, obviously, for the reasons we’ve already been over.
I will say, as a former lefty myself, that I understand your comment about leftist “idealism”, but I’d be cautious about using that as an excuse, especially for some of its more egregious excesses — many of those involved in the Hitler Youth, for example, might have been described as idealists as well after all.
And I’ll also say that I agree completely with the notion that war is or should be always a very reluctant option, but sometimes unavoidable nevertheless.
Bernard Lewis, a conservative scholar of Islam and former adviser to Reagan and Bush administrations, writes persuasively and at length on the vast extent of opposition to bin Ladenism among Muslim clerics in the Middle East.
Lewis writes:
“Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda followers do not represent Islam and their actions directly contradict basic Islamic principles and teachings.”
http://humanities.psydeshow.org/political/lewis.htm
Lewis develops this idea at length, while making clear that there are important aspects of Islam that distinguish it from other religions and which must be understood before attempting to understand what bin Laden means. As a conservative, he argues for a military response to Islamic radicalism, while destroying the notion that Islam itself is the enemy.
Contemporary Muslim clerics and scholars who have made public declarations of their opposition to terrorism include:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/bin_laden.html
“Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Osama bin Laden is the true face of a billion Muslims, or the true voice of the Koran,” said Dr. Safir Akhtar, a research scholar at the Islamic University in Islamabad, a Saudi-financed institution that has long been a magnet for young militants from around the Islamic world.
Sheik Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, now 66, has been relentless in his condemnation of the attacks in America. He preaches that they were “not compatible with Shariah law,” the Koranic legal code, nor with the Islamic concept of jihad, and that the perpetrators were not martyrs as Mr. bin Laden has claimed, but “merely suicides,” because they killed innocent civilians, and in a distant land, America. In an interview with a Beirut newspaper, Al Safir, Sheik Fadlallah again accused Mr. bin Laden of having ignored Koranic texts.
Sheik Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi, with a history of anti-American militancy even longer than Sheik Fadlallah’s, expresses a similar view. From his base in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, the 75-year-old sheik has issued Islamic fatwas, or decrees, on issues like the need for Muslims to boycott McDonald’s restaurants, But on the Sept. 11 attacks, he has used language similar to that of Mr. Bush and other American politicians. “Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack on innocent human beings a grave sin,” said. “Even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who is engaged in face-to-face confrontation with them.
More examples:
http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/lawmaker.html
Representative Joseph Pitts (Republican of Pennsylvania) in an October 30 speech to the House of Representatives quoted the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar in Egypt, whom he referred to as “the highest and most respected Islamic authority in the world,” on the types of acts forbidden by the Koran.
Shaykh Tantawi has stated that the Koran “specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of,” Pitts said. Shaykh Tantawi, Pitts continued, has said that the “jihad” Usama bin Laden has called for against America “is invalid and not binding on Muslims.”Pitts quoted the Grand Shaykh as saying, “Islam rejects all of these acts.” The Shaykh added that terrorism is un-Islamic, Pitts said.
“Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve,” Pitts quoted the religious leader as saying.
The evidence is overwhelming: the vast majority of Muslims oppose terrorism.
The idea that Muslims at large do not oppose the terrorists in their midst has an odd currency within the right wing media.
You would think people who argue that democracy will thrive among the moderate Muslims in Iraq if and when Islamic radicals are defeated there would see the contradiction of then arguing either that moderate Muslims do not exist or that these moderate Muslims aren’t opposed to the extremists or, if they are, they’re too quiet about it.
Vince P asks:
“So who will dissuade the terrorists? How will they and their future recruits ever be dissuaded from believing they are doing exactly what Allah commands from them?”
The best persuaders are surely the vast majority of Muslim leaders in both the religious and secular worlds whose interpretation of the religion rejects the call to violent aggression.
Vince P and his ilk are on the other side, of course, parroting bin Laden’s risible medieval claims that Islam requires fanatical violence. Their propaganda denying the existence or legitimacy of hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims is a rather cruel affront to the American soldiers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq based on the idea that the Muslim majorities there want nothing more than peace and democracy.
Claim: Bernard Lewis, a conservative scholar of Islam and former adviser to Reagan and Bush administrations, writes persuasively and at length on the vast extent of opposition to bin Ladenism among Muslim clerics in the Middle East.
“Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda followers do not represent Islam and their actions directly contradict basic Islamic principles and teachings.”
Response: Lewis is all over the place.. one day he says X , the next he says Y… in any case, it’s not up to Lewis to say who is or isn’t acting according to Islam.. Al Qaeda is satisified that it is and thinks it is. It certainly isn’t motivated by any other identifible ideology.
Claim: This or that cleric says it’s wrong to attack innocent people, committ suicide , etc.
Response: Yes , it’s true there is a real difference of opinion in regards to the tactics used in the 3rd Jihad. But no one should be fooled.. Islamic language is not Western language… who we consider to be innocent people isn’t neccessarily who they think are innocent.
Plus most sunni scholars hold to the view that it is illegal to engage in Offenisve Jihad without the Khalifah being in existance.Only the Khalif has the authority to compell all Muslims to engage in offensive Jihad.
so yes, they may thikn AQ is wrong now to engage in war.. but they would be encouraging them with no problem if a khalif was here.
Plus many Islamic leaders have already sent us many many invitations to join Islam… that sort of invitation is really an ultimatum.. so we are not considered innocent.. since we have come into knowedlge of Allah and rejected the call to Islam.. thus we are at war with Allah.
Claim: The evidence is overwhelming: the vast majority of Muslims oppose terrorism.
Response: Unsubstantied wishful thinking. And if true. is irrelevent. When you have 1.x Billion people, all you need is a small minority and you still have millions of people on your side. Since the majority does nothing to restrain the jihadists , they are of no consequence.
Claim: The idea that Muslims at large do not oppose the terrorists in their midst has an odd currency within the right wing media.
You would think people who argue that democracy will thrive among the moderate Muslims in Iraq if and when Islamic radicals are defeated there would see the contradiction of then arguing either that moderate Muslims do not exist or that these moderate Muslims aren’t opposed to the extremists or, if they are, they’re too quiet about it.
Response: Well the hope is, the Iraqis will see the value in humane civil society after having seen the scorge of national tryanny and islamic terrorism.
That is the big gamble Bush took… can a third option from the other two dead-ends save from the Middle East from the most violent expressions of Islam. After the threats to Iraqis are gone.. we shall see how they react toward us.. will they revive their violence aginst us. or will they have learned to trust us and be friendly. I have my doubts.. but that is the great hope.
Claim: Vince P and his ilk are on the other side, of course, parroting bin Laden’s risible medieval claims that Islam requires fanatical violence.
Response: Pure Islam does require such. And the fact that Al Banna and Khomieni and others revived Jihad after a long period of it being dormant is proof that the doctrine will always be around waiting for someone to take it up .. like a reccessive gene.
Claim Their propaganda denying the existence or legitimacy of hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims is a rather cruel affront to the American soldiers sent to Afghanistan and Iraq based on the idea that the Muslim majorities there want nothing more than peace and democracy.
Response: It’s obvious our little ideologue didn’t read what I said carefully.. I’ll repeat this part:
“Muslims.. the people, span the entire spectrum of human experience. Most have no intention of doing any sort of violence but that isn’t because of Islam, it is in spite of it.”
We didn’t go to Afghanistan to spread democracy .. we went there to end the threat of the terrorist networks and are now stuck having to babysit the place again. and the way you wrote your last sentence screams “disingenious” to me.
McLovin: Why do moderate Muslims, who by definition don’t support, let alone participate in, terrorism, need to disown it?
Well, at least he’s not asking that anymore, is he? Even McL seems able now to grasp the elementary point that, if you’re a member of a faith group in the name of which dozens, even hundreds of the most violent atrocities around the world are being committed, and you don’t support or approve of this, the very least you should do is make that known. In fact, of course, the most basic common sense would tell you that those committing these heinous acts in the name of your beliefs represent a very serious threat to those very beliefs as you understand them, and need to be dug out of your midst, your communities, your schools, and your places of worship, root and branch, and exposed to the world as the heretical criminals they are — wouldn’t it? And is that what we see? Not quite.
You see, McL, words are cheap. I don’t doubt you could cherry-pick a book full of phrases and quotes purporting to show how this or that mullah denounced that or this particular terrorist group, act, or tactic. (I particularly liked the chutzpah of using the “spiritual leader of Hezbollah“, of all people, as an Islamic authority condemning the 9/11 attacks on the grounds that they were “in a distant land”!) But it would be easy to fill a book shelf, or entire libraries, with full-context rants from extremist mosques and madrassas around the world inciting believers to violence in the name of defending Islam. And the infamous “bloody borders” of Islam — from Nigeria and Darfur, to Chechnya, Kashmir, Thailand, Indonesia, and many others (not even to mention, of course, Israel, Europe, and America) — attest to the effectiveness of those words. And that’s the real nature of the problem — for any so-called “moderate” muslim at least as much as for anyone else.
The deeper problem may lie in the nature of Islam itself — for one that’s become so widespread, it’s a peculiarly brittle belief system, resistant to change and interpretation, prone to fundamentalist and literalist insistence. For such a religion, the emphasis on reason and the individual, and the consequent rise of secular science and technology that characterizes modern capitalist societies, represents an especially acute threat — and when such a religion has been historically ready to resort to violence as a means of dealing with threats, it’s little wonder that such a resort gains such ready following now. The question is whether the planet is large enough, any longer, to hold both such an Islam and the modern world? At this point, I don’t know the answer to that question, and I very much doubt anyone does. But we all need to be ready for the answer to be no.
Pingback:Which comes first, democracy or security? | NeoConstant