Posted on 02/12/2004 5:37:47 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
First you terrorize your opponents into silence so that your movement appears to have no opposition. This gives you tremendous power, not only because moderates quietly feel they are alone in their disagreement with you, but also because the ignorant media – especially the foreign media – casts you as the choice of the people. Having succeeded in silencing moderates, the next step is terrorizing them into cooperating with you. Soon passive cooperation is not enough. You want more than their body – you want their soul, so you terrorize the moderates into being "passionate" in your cause.
In the end, your movement appears to have only loyal and active supporters. Now you are in total control, for who would dare speak out against you? As Hitler said, 10 years before he finally rose to power, "The National Socialist Movement will in the future ruthlessly prevent – if necessary by force – all meetings or lectures that are likely to distract the minds of our fellow countrymen." In other words, all opposition is evil and we will protect you from it. Sound familiar? -- Source
The strategies that won the Cold War—containment and deterrence—won't work against such dangers, because those strategies assumed the existence of identifiable regimes led by identifiable leaders operating by identifiable means from identifiable territories. How, though, do you contain a shadow? How do you deter someone who's prepared to commit suicide?
Timely to review the NSS in the wake of our invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. I wonder what Gaddis would say about his statement:
These plans depend critically, however, on our being welcomed in Baghdad if we invade, as we were in Kabul. If we aren't, the whole strategy collapses, because it's premised on the belief that ordinary Iraqis will prefer an American occupation over the current conditions in which they live. There's no evidence that the Bush administration is planning the kind of military commitments the United States made in either of the two world wars, or even in Korea and Vietnam. This strategy relies on getting cheered, not shot at.
I would hope that Gaddis would conclude that our welcome was by and large welcoming and that our presence is desired. We are getting shot at, but it is more of a continuation of the war by a small minority. I hope we have the will and commitment to stay the course. GWB has crafted one of the boldest foreign policies in the 20th century. I believe the rewards outweigh the risks. As someone who spent nearly 30 years in the foreign policy community, I applaud what he is doing. Carter, Clinton and Albright were a disaster and we are still living with the consequences of their legacy.
Indeed. I was thinkning I'd send it to my brother, who recently sent me a couple of articles from Atlantic Monthly that were not as nice nor as intelligent.
Did you happen to see Frontline tonight? Very interesting coverage of Iraqis and the differences from town to town. I am gonna see when its repeated.
Iraq's imminent danger.
It's a funny word game, isn't it? For the most part, the argument seems to be that a)President Bush never said imminent and b)as the president reiterated on MTP, if we wait til it's imminent, it's too late.
Are we now going to say that Iraq WAS an imminent threat? I think it's semantics. If the threat is such that we can't afford to wait, then it's an immediate threat. Imminent. But the argument goes in circles....the threat wasn't imminent, it was imminent, we can't wait til its imminent, it must be dealt with....well what's the diff? If it requires immediate action, it's an imminent threat, right?
As for your comment about short sightedness, I don't know if that's what it is. It hasn't been easy for me to understand and digest the information. To comprehend what the heck is going on. And I imagine even some very bright minds are not sure what will come of all this. That's the foreign policy.
On the spending side, I think the "short sightedness" of some fiscal conservatives caught the attention of the lawmakers, to some effect, while the long range thinkers were busy cheerleading, spinning, and trying to talk down any criticism.
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.