Posted on 09/04/2002 7:44:11 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Now that we are set to have our great debate on the war against terrorism, it seems it will be the wrong debate.
By all indications, the discussion will be about using our irresistible military might against a single country in order to bring down its leader. We should instead be talking about using all our political, moral and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny. That is our real mission, the essence of the war in which we are engaged, and the proper subject of our national debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The Saudi royals are the Third World version of noveau riche white trash. A democratic Saudi Arabia is every Americans worst nightmare...except that the sheepskin will finally be off the wolf.
Avert your eyes when you look to Mecca, infidel...there may be a very bright flash soon.
The pool is still open and predictions are still being accepted!
We're not going to allow those States to sponsor terrorism any more. They can stop on their own or we'll do it for them. Saddam and Iraq are only the next step after Afghanistan. Saddam is unreformable and he must go.
What comes after Iraq, I don't know. I do know Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia are all on the list. The establishment of an anti-terror, pro-America Iraq will sure make the next steps much easier. I support the partition of (Saudi) Arabia into several Arab Emirates. Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait are NOT problems to the US and let's add to their ranks. The Ba'athist regimes of Iraq and Syria will go. Iran's Mullah regime will go. What follows is less our problem and will ultimately be up to the people of those countries.
Absolutley false and stunningly ignorant. Why does Mr. Leeden suppose that we support the Saudi ruling family? Why does he suppose that we abandoned the shiite uprising in Iraq at the end of the gulf war? Why does he suppose that we support corrupt and oppressive regimes all over the middle east? Is it because "the people" are clamoring for Democracy and freedom and liberty and are starving for western style government and culture? No- the exact and total opposite. We support the rulers we do and allowed Sadaam to remain in power because if they were to fall they would be replaced by radical Islamic totalitarian regimes.
Western thinking has barely penetrated the Islamic world. You can count the number of Arab or Muslem pro western intellectuals on one hand. The people in these countries don't look to western ideas and ways as there deliverance from oppression- just the opposite- they look to radical islamic groups. Osama is a folk hero to the common man on the street in these countries! Leeden is either dangerously ignorant or a knowing purveyour of untruth. There is no great groundswell of western support among these people- not in the slightest.
The writer is an deluded! He apparently does not understand democracy or Islam. Islam and democracy are incompatible; Islam demands submission to its self-appointed leaders, not representative government by consent of the masses.
The terrorists will have no place to go, no place to run, no place to set up shop, have no one to provide political cover.
Our list is prioritized. And as the world sees that we are true to our mission, then more will join us. Terrorism must be eradicated from the face of the earth... and then the world must be vigilant to make sure it is not resurrected.
Since the militant side of Islam and Pan-Arabism will not die... our vigilance must be even more so. It would be a shame if we only fought 1/2 way and suddenly got satisfied. That means we will be refighting the war in another 5 or 6 wars. The stakes go up because the means of terrorist executing their terror goes up.
As for me... I never want to see another building collapse. Let's fight it now. Later may prove too late.
Very good stuff.
FMCDH
And after we have invaded and broke apart all these countries will democracy flourish, tolerance reign, and they love the USA and not want to attack us or sponsor terrorism again? I have a bridge to sell you. This article is nutty.
If we can set up a better situation for the ordinary Iraqi, yes they'll think well of the US.
They already attack us and sponsor terrorism, up to now, there's been no cost for that. Now, the leaders are going to start paying the price.
I have no doubt that if we were to invade Iraq it would be a cake walk. It would over in two weeks. And then we would even be treated to pictures of Iraqis kissing our boys in the streets on CNN. Then what? How long are we going to be there? How long before the shiites go after the ruling Sunnis? How long before terrorism and guerilla activity starts? It is already happening in Afghanistan now. And after Ira q then what? Are we going to take over an entire civilization of a billion people and trty to make them good little democrats like we did the germans and the Japanese?
regards
Yes. there is quite a bit of room in "my world" for that type of action. However- what is being discussed and proffered in this article is so much more than that. We are debating whether or not to wage war and invade a country- not "tweak" it through other more discreet means.
Ledeen: But the prudent strategy is actually more dangerous and thoroughly unrealistic. Moving step by step gives the surviving terror masters time to mount a counterattack--time they would use to develop the weapons of mass destruction that rightly concern us, and give urgency to our cause.
Sound like a lot more than "tweaking" to me.
You are of course right in your comments. Bush has been ne using a divide and conquer approach to the middle east ever since 9/11. Such a strategy has the greatest chance of success.
Unite our enemies so lots of us can die fighting them is not too bright... unless the suggester gets to watch while others fight and die. Covering fighting and dying is a good career move. Divide them and then overthrow them one at a time is a good political move for a leader... and that is the Bush policy. We have in effect subverted Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is 2 of the 10 Muslim nations. If we can do Iraq we will have made a major dent in problems we created.
We need to remember that both England and France wanted to retain the middle east as colonies after WWII. I submit the world would be a safer place if they had. It was the combined idealism of Truman and Eisenhower that allowed the rise of these rogue states. They had visions of middle eastern Deomocracy and other silly ideas. It was Jimmy Carter who helped in the resurection of Muslim exrtremists in Iran. That silly Jimmy carter act so applauded by our media, in many ways started us down this tragic and costly path we find ourselves on. We have a history of idealistically shooting ourselves in the foot.
But we can't undo the past. It seems to me the solution that works best is divide and conquer. Anyone who studied the rise of the Soviet Union will understand how client nations can be won by force that was expended to subdue othernations. Do it two or three times and rogue nations get the message.
Dictators don't like to be ex dictators. If get right with the USA or be an ex dictator is the choice, get right with the USA will win the day.
We need to take down one of the 4 bad nations. Then take down the second. That can likely effect the desired changes in the 3 and 4th nations without much effort on our part.
A sad fact that complecates the matter is the USA will not drill for its own oil. And if we took on all the Arabs and they cut off the oil, we would have to propel our fighter aircraft with rubber bands and row our supply ships to the middle east.
The only path that makes sense is divide and conquer. No one could truly believe that we could win a frontal attack war without middle eastern oil. Those who think we can are just not thinking.
Indeed it is, but is does not neccessarily require massive intervention thru conventional warfare. A clear demonstration of force and will, will send a clear message. Those who are in power understand the message and may or may not respond as we would like. Hussein is a megalomaniac. The extent to which his oil will purchase support remains to be seen. But a conquered Iraq will give a very strong message to our "allies" and enemies alike. What they do with the information will not be clear for some time. It's not a game for the faint hearted to be sure. The fact remains. A regime that sits upon oil reserves has decided to force the world to its knees. Some bow willingly and get what they want for a time. Some resist and earn the "World's" enmity. That means of course that most of the world would prefer to let a radical and vicious world view prevail in hopes that it will focus elsewhere. Ok. It will be us for a while, and then who is next? And if we don't deal with it, is there any hope at all?
regards
Sadaam's oil has nothing to do with "purchasing support". What the Arab in the street will see from Indonesia to Morrocco is that "Islam" is being attacked by the west and that their corrupt rulers who are on the payroll and that oppress them will do nothing about it and let it happen.
To be honest this is so obvious that I seriously doubt that any of this war talk against Iraq is for real and it is all one big ruse on the part of Bush designed to lull Osama into the open and his true supporters. I would not be surprised if Iraq and Hussein are in on it with us.
(Zec 12:2 KJV) Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. (Zec 12:3 KJV) And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.
And basing one's opinion on what you see on TV is, of course, scholarly. If you want to go that route, how about including the information-starved Afghanis who didn't even know about 9/11, until newsmen told them about it? Or those who celebrated liberation from the Taliban in the streets of Kabul? Or the anti-regime demonstrations by the Iranians that have been verified by several different news sources? Of course, the latter weren't televised (something to do with government-controlled media, I believe), so, of course, in your well-wrapped reasoning, those events don't exist.
As for Huntington, there are a few things he did not take into account in his diagnosis: chiefly, the violence of Miltant Islamists against Muslims. The oppression and brutality that characterizes the Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Saudi Arabian regimes may make for apparent solidarity, but only because the alternative -- dissent -- is punishable by death, or worse. Maybe these people aren't ready for democracy, but it's a safe assumption that the very humanity of the common man cries out for an existence with some semblance of freedom and dignity, in whatever form that might take. Look to the secular government of Turkey for a model; it isn't exactly utopia, but it's a damn sight better than the living hell endured by the common man in Iraq.
There's no quick cure-all, but it's better to fight trying to change things, albeit slowly and with difficulty, then simply waiting for the cancer of militant Islam to spread and engulf the world. It's exactly that failed policy of appeasement that brought us 9/11, and that will bring us even darker days in the years ahead if we do nothing to change these regimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.