We are still at war -

The Telegraph - UK ^ | December 31, 2003 | Editorial

[UnklGene]

We are still at war -

(Filed: 31/12/2003)

Following September 11, 2001, George W Bush warned that the war on terrorists and their sponsors would be long and of global reach. Persistent pursuit of such a goal was always going to be hard to maintain, whether because of the softer options offered the electorate by the political opposition or through bureaucratic inertia. Sensing this, two neo-conservatives, David Frum and Richard Perle, have issued a renewed wake-up call in a book to be published tomorrow .

"We can feel the will to win ebbing in Washington," they write in An End to Evil. "We sense the reversion to the bad old habits of complacency and denial." They remind their readers that the likes of Osama bin Laden require another spectacular act of mass murder to justify their propaganda, and conclude that there is no middle way between victory and holocaust.

Many of their analyses and prescriptions follow familiar neo-conservative lines: the inadequacies and the need for reorganisation of the FBI and CIA; State Department ambivalence towards the war on terror that can even be "actively subversive of representative government"; changing the regimes in North Korea and Iran; treating Saudi Arabia with far less indulgence, even to the extent of accepting secession of the oil-rich Eastern Province, where most of the Shi'ites live; making France pay for its opposition to American policy, and weaning Britain from military integration in Europe by offering its defence industries a share on equal terms of the American procurement market.

In the current political climate, An End to Evil can be seen as something of a rearguard action. Iraq seems unlikely to evolve into the stable secular democracy that the neo-conservatives envisioned. While remaining alert to the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, Mr Bush appears content to "park" the first in the six-power forum hosted by China, and the second with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Like Bill Clinton in 2000, the President is not looking for a big new international fight as he enters an election year.

It is, perhaps, best to see the Frum and Perle book as the opening shot in a bid to set the agenda for a second Bush presidential term. The issues they discuss will be as relevant then as they are now, and their bold solutions will still deserve a reasoned response. For both men have fully grasped the seismic change in world affairs that September 11 represented.

[ylikone]

Too bad the repubs don't realize you can't really fight the thing they call "terrorism". You can kill some terrorists but you'll never get them all. The killing of terrorists will breed more terrorists. The repubs play a game they will never win.

[ModelBreaker]

Too bad the repubs don't realize you can't really fight the thing they call "terrorism". You can kill some terrorists but you'll never get them all. The killing of terrorists will breed more terrorists. The repubs play a game they will never win.

Of course. The only appropriate response to terrorism is to crawl under the covers, pull them over your head, and suck your thumb. Calling for mommy helps too. In fact, if you call for mommy, you will almost surely win, unlike those wascally wepublicans.

[CurlyBill]

ylikone ..... FR member since 31 Dec 03.

[Spruce]

Neville? Is that you?

[blam]

"The killing of terrorists will breed more terrorists."

That's good, we like killing terrorists...the more the better.

[Monti Cello]

Well then I guess we're all screwed. I'd rather go down fighting than capitulating to Islamist scum.

[Shermy]

"Many of their analyses and prescriptions follow familiar neo-conservative lines"

Ooh, those "neo-cons" again...tricky bastards, they sound just like Ike, JFK, etc.

[Snake65]

So I take it you believe that killing Americans breeds more Americans as well.

[AM2000]

Never say never, loser.

[McCloud-Strife]

Too bad the repubs don't realize you can't really fight the thing they call "terrorism". You can kill some terrorists but you'll never get them all. The killing of terrorists will breed more terrorists. The repubs play a game they will never win.

No doubt you might have sung the same tune during the cold war. Confrontation of these people is the only responce civilization can offer. Anything less is a slow painful suicide or worse of western civilization. Democrats and squishy soft Republicans warned the world not to anger the Soviets for 40 years. Communism grew by leaps and bounds around the world. After Reagan made a stand in Granada in 1983, communism made no more gains and actually retreated and finally fell with the Berlin Wall. Bush is simlarly making a stand against terrorists, drawing them away from America and Americans and drawing them to a free fire zone where the full weight of American Power can be brought to bear such as Iraq. The war on Terrorism is not going to be quick cheap or easy, and no one ever said it would be.
Terrorists do not reason, they can be bribed only temporarily, you can not be rid of them by being nice to them, providing clean water, doctors and good will. UN resolutions will not take the hatred from their little hearts. No, What they understand is force, and strength. If you are weak and an infidel you are unfit to live. If you are so strong you cannot over come someone by force you do not take away the hatred, but you are not dead either. Weakness is death after 9-11 and I am not willing to return to 9-10

[VOA]

You can kill some terrorists but you'll never get them all.

You're absolutely correct. Civility, not to mention good manners, prevents
the neutralization of terrorists (OK, a terrorist apologist) like Howard Dean.

[Damagro]

Too bad the repubs don't realize you can't really fight the thing they call "terrorism". You can kill some terrorists but you'll never get them all. The killing of terrorists will breed more terrorists. The repubs play a game they will never win.


Yep. Time to just cut our losses and surrender

[NutCrackerBoy]

We sense the reversion to the bad old habits of complacency and denial. -David Frum and Richard Perle, An End To Evil

Something that might help is if the Democrats accepted that reality is really real. If both parties were out there competing for who can kill the most terrorists and close the most madrassas, we might maintain our will a little better.

[driftless]

Why sure, we'll send a message to all the terrorists er I mean warm, misunderstood people who are trying to kill us that we mean them no harm and could we meet for some tea. That'll make them love us...yeah, sure (yuk, yuk). Hey pal, remember we tried that before and what we got for our efforts at understanding terrorists is 9/11. I think killing people who are trying to kill us is a better idea than coddling them.

[thoughtomator]

Psst. It's a war against Islam, but we would rather have an Islamic Reformation than to have to kill off every Muslim on the planet. "Terrorism" is a code word for unreformed Islam. Just FYI.

[Prodigal Son]

Blah, blah, blah.

Welcome to Free Republic.

[July 4th]

The killing of terrorists will breed more terrorists

The killing of terrorists has already led to many being scared out of it - most notably Libya.

[ladyinred]

Too bad those who you obviously favor did absolutely nothing to stop the terrorists for many years of an administration that KNEW the threat, KNEW the deeds, and deliberately swept them under the rug to make believe we had peace and prosperity in the good ole US of A. Your kind of logic is dangerous.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Isn't having the war on (terrorism, poverty, drugs, unseatbelted drivers, tobacco, coffee, wearing plaid with stripes, misuse of "hopefully") the point? Winning would seem to be less important