Posted on 06/03/2005 5:09:21 AM PDT by mal
The three-year-plus war that began on September 11 is the strangest conflict in our history. It is not just that the first day saw the worst attack on American soil since our creation, or that we are publicly pledged to fighting a method — “terror” — rather than the concrete enemy of Islamic fascism that employs it.
Our dilemma is that we have not sought to defeat and humiliate the enemy as much as wean a people from the thrall of Islamic autocracy. That is our challenge, and explains our exasperating strategy of half-measures and apologies — and the inability to articulate exactly whom we are fighting and why.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Quite a different strategy than was articulated in the post 9-11 days.
He didn't really make anything clear.
He used an anology with the Nazis and then went of on a rant about Islamic fascism.
He fails to recognize that the ideology is "Islamic fundamentalism" and not "Islamic fascism".
There are no "moderates" in Islam. Failing to follow the tenets of Islam does not make one a "moderate".
Using VDH's analogy could we have said that there was a "moderate" Nazi and that by empowering "moderate" Nazism we could defeat ideologues such as Hilter?
Don't ever underestimate the affinity that all Muslims ultimately have for each other.
OK, I understand the theory.
Where's the evidence?
All around. I wouldn't have believed it either, but I've been in the Middle East for almost a year and a half now. What he says is true. The majority of the people are not hate-filled madmen. They're actually very warm, generous people and they frevently desire peace and freedom. They hate the violence and they're tired of war.
The media hunts for the ones who spew hatred and negativity and puts them on the air to reinforce their agenda. The stories coming out of the Middle East are horribly distorted. You never hear any of the good things and they far outweigh the bad, really.
You might look at the elections in Iraq, the demonstrations in Lebanon, Too name two.
No, we could have said that there was a "moderate" German that we could have used to defeat ideologues such as Hitler.
There are "moderate" ideologies within Islam. To claim that there are none is similar to claiming that all Christians have to be supporters of the Spanish Inquisition.
Our strategy is, in part, to help create an Islamic reformation. To claim that we are at war with all of Islam is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. It empowers our enemies and is counterproductive.
I don't see how a disagreement can wrong you but if that is your take, fine.
Either you believe that man innately seeks and prefers freedom or you don't. If you don't, case closed. If you do the fact of historic oppression and conflict does not negate that. What has been missing in the past in that part of the world has been the opportunity to be free. They now have an opportunity to achieve that.
There will always be conflict between good and evil, freedom and oppression. We see it right here at home being played out between the Democrats and the Republicans. Ben Franklin famously warned of the difficulty in keeping our form of representative democracy, or republic. I believe the desire for freedom is universal. If you don't then your perspective is different from mine and that colors our opinions.
I like your tagline as much as mine.
First of all, it is not use who can help create an Islamic reformation.
Any reformation needs to come from within Islam and to have the most effect needs to come directly from Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is the caretaker of Islam's holiest shrine and much of the Islamic world finds themselves following Saudi Arabia's lead.
And secondly, as I said before, don't underestimate the affinity that all Muslims hold for each other.
Blood (for lack of a better word) is always thicker than water.
Despite the millions of dollars in reward money, don't you find it a bit strange that these Muslims who want peace aren't falling all over themselves to turn in OBL?
Not at all. Osama is unlikely to associate with those that he classifies as apostates and unbelievers.
Much of the area he operates in has very poor infrastructure and communications.
You have to know that it is Osama to turn him in.
As for your comment that we cannot help an Islamic reformation, we are already doing so.
Not everything that needs to be done needs to be done by the government
Not according to a certain junior senator from NY. :-)
I hope you don't take this discourse as argumentative, but I honestly don't see things the same way as you do.
bttt
"Our strategy is, in part, to help create an Islamic reformation. To claim that we are at war with all of Islam is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. It empowers our enemies and is counterproductive."
and
"What he says is true. The majority of the people are not hate-filled madmen. They're actually very warm, generous people and they frevently desire peace and freedom. They hate the violence and they're tired of war."
Very, very true --- and all this and more are foundations of President Bush's Liberty Doctrine: a definitive statement describing what is occurring, and laying out how this next century will progress (unless we succumb to terrorism).
For motivational material, look at:
President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html
The whole strategic approach FReepers ought to be at least somewhat familiar with is here:
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
I've printed the PDF and bound it for studying and to show friends.
I passed back through Reagan Airport again in April. Didn't eat at TFI Friday's that time around, though. No FReepers to hang out with and it was early morning anyway.
Take care.
IMO, I expect another major attack is what it will come to. Even if Al Qaeda is destroyed, something else will crop up. On the one hand, a policy of war against the terrorists becomes more difficult to sustain as the will of the American people (not just posters on FR) wanes. It's better to not fight a war at all than to go halfway then quit. On the other hand, the policy of appeasement or ignoring reality won't work. It shows the U.S. as weak. Military strength is meaningless without the will to use it, even as a last resort. We need a bipartisan strategy that will be continued even if Democrats regain power. Consistency and perseverence over the long term are probably more important than short term victories.
I don't see your comments as argumentative. A discourse is informative to all. Most of what we post is, after all, for the vast majority who are lurkers.
There is plenty of room for honest disagreement.
You and I have an honest disagreement.
Most liberals have a dishonest disagreement with us. While claiming to support the troops and the U.S., they hope for a U.S. defeat, and support our enemies.
Even if it is, is that a problem? How?
Furthermore, we've taken the approach that we're going to "change" the that culture from what it's been for the past 3000 years. I'm not sure that can be done. In fact, I think a pretty average reading of the bible would say that it won't be done. That this approach will fail.
This has become a matter of politics and surely we learned from vietnam that a highly political approach which places such value on the global community .... to fighting a war was not a winning strategy. WE went into Iraq against the global community's wishes. And we were very successful. But then we decided to listen to what the arab world had to say about shuch things as Fallujah.... and we began this descent that leads us to having Cheney saying we should be out of Iraq by 09???
We've approached this similarly in the past. We installed a "friendly" regiem in Iran (The Shaw) and that didn't work well. I'm not sure why we think we can do it better now. I understand that we're trying to install democracy in Iraq, yet we've got a puppet government that we're trying to prop up in Pakistan, a country that by-in-large does not support this puppet government. We all know this can't last. Eventually the wheels will fall off of that, and we're hoping it's a democrat in power then so we can blame it on their administration.
Does that about cover it??? :)
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.