Posted on 02/25/2006 2:13:58 PM PST by RWR8189
DEMAGOGUES TO THE RIGHT OF THEM, appeasers to the left of them, media in front of them, volleying and thundering. Can the Bush administration continue to charge ahead? Does it have the will--and the competence--to lead the nation for the next three years toward victory in the long war against radical Islamism?
From Copenhagen to Samara, the radical Islamists are on the offensive. From Tehran to Damascus, the dictators are trying to regain the upper hand in the Middle East. From Moscow to Beijing, the enemies of liberal democracy are working to weaken the United States. Across the world, the forces of terror and tyranny are fighting back. Are we up to the challenge?
It's not clear that we are. Many liberals, here and in Europe, long ago lost the nerve to wage war--or even to defend themselves--against illiberalism. Parts of the conservative movement now seem to be losing their nerve as well. In response to an apparent clash of civilizations, they would retrench, hunker down, and let large parts of the world go to hell in a hand basket, hoping that the hand basket won't blow up in our faces.
Remember: The United States of America and its allies--regimes that seek to embody, or at least to move towards, the principles of decent, civilized, liberal democracy--did not seek this war. But we are at war, and we could lose it. Victory is not inevitable.
Does that make Bush-supporting, liberal-democracy-promoting, Iraq-war-defending neoconservative "Leninists," as Francis Fukuyama has recently charged? No. Does it mean we believe--as Fukuyama defines Leninism--that "history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will"? Does it mean that history does not automatically move in the right direction, that justice does not necessarily or easily prevail? Yes.
It would be nice to believe, as Fukuyama does, that "a long-term process of social evolution" is under way that will inevitably produce liberal democracy. It would be nice to enjoy the comfortable complacency of a historical determinism that suggests--as Fukuyama has it--that what we most need to do is to embrace a "good governance agenda" on behalf of a long-term process of "democracy promotion" that "has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."
Indeed, it would be nice if we lived in a world in which we didn't have to take the enemies of liberal democracy seriously--a world without jihadists who want to kill and clerics who want to intimidate and tyrants who want to terrorize. It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.
To govern is to choose, and to accept responsibility for one's choices. To govern is not wishfully to await the end of history. To govern is not fatalistically to watch a clash of civilizations from the sidelines.
As Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council observed last week, "We are in the midst of a jihadist offensive. The bombing of [Iraq's] Askariya Shiite Shrine is another indication of the world-wide jihadist offensive against the West. From the cartoon jihad to the Hamas victory to the Iranian effort to obtain nuclear weapons to the attempt by al Qaeda to foment an Iraqi civil war--our enemy is taking the initiative. And the West is on its heels."
The Bush administration leads the West. If the West seems to be on its heels, it is because the administration seems to be on its heels. The fact that the left is utterly irresponsible, and some of the right is silly, is no excuse.
Wittmann continued, "Many mistakes have been made since 9/11. But at the end of the day, we should recognize that we are all Americans and part of the West that is under assault by a truly evil foe. Our bravest are on the front lines in this war. The least we can do at home is to demonstrate some moral seriousness that the moment demands."
Moral seriousness in this case means political seriousness. Insist on going ahead with the ports deal so that Arab governments who have stood with us in the war on terror are not told to get lost when one of their companies acquires port management contracts in the United States. Make a real effort to destabilize Ahmadinejad in Iran. Do what it takes to defeat Zarqawi and secure Iraq. Stand with Denmark, and moderate Muslims, against the radical mob. This is no time for dishonorable retreat. It is time for resolve--and competence. After all, it would be most unfortunate if the administration summoned its nerve and charged ahead--only to meet the fate of Tennyson's Light Brigade!
--William Kristol
But what I say in the book is correct, no?
The UAE has sent troops to Afghanistan.
The UAE invited the US Treasury, FBI, and military et al departments to examine their banking system and records in the weeks after 9-11 to help them shore up their financial sieve. No other ME country invited our people, even though we sent out feelers to all of them. They tightened up their banking, and have used their records and contacts to arrest those we were hunting, or give us intel where they are.
Everyone has to hang their hat on someone. IMO they have chosen us. They didn't have to. You can't tell me they aren't under threats and pressure from the jihadists and mullahs for aligning with us.
I don't think we need to give them national security secrets or anything like that, but let them run a business? Sure.
Look, unless you're willing to kill them all, and we aren't at that point yet (and if we get there, its going to messy what with the women and children) we are going to have to deal with them, and the best way to win "hearts and minds" is to export capitalism and liberalism.
Pimp.
It's amusing to read this from a conservative. Pulling out the "race card" ploy used to be a strictly liberal democrat tactic that conservatives would scorn them for. But since the President has insinuated that everyone who opposes this deal is a racist, it's unfortunately become a conservative tactic too.
This business about the UAE having been our good ally "all along" is totally wrong. Aren't you aware that the 9/11 attackers based their operation in the UAE, where they were provided with fake passports and laundered money? Don't you know that the FBI discovered ties between UAE banks and al Qaeda and had these accounts frozen in the aftermath of 9/11? Then there is still the very much unresolved issue of the UAE allowing their ports and waterways to be used to ship contraband nuclear materials to Iran. And what about the UAE's staunchly anti-Israel policies? They refuse to even recognize Israel as a legitimate state, and Israel is our best ally in the region.
The UAE may be our "allies" in some remote sense of the word because they cooperate with us to a degree, but to say they are "fighting" terrorism with us just isn't true. Where in Iraq or Afghanistan can their troops, airforce or navy be found fighting anybody? All they're doing is cooperating with us because the Royal Families and Sheiks in the UAE fear having their own economy attacked by al Qaeda lunatics.
So while our government and these Sheiks may have a few things in common, it's dangerously wrong to think of them as "friends and allies" in the same sense as Britain, Italy, Australia, etc, are.
Besides, it's not the Sheiks that worry me, it is the people of the UAE that worry me. They are islamists with a completely different world view than the U.S. We believe that democracy is the answer to peace and prosperity in the world, they believe islam is. The UAE is an islamic monarchy, where the Sheiks have total control of the people's affairs, and the people have no voice whatsover; and this is just fine with them because it is "allah's" way. So while the UAE may appear to be cooperating with us, who really knows what lurks inside their islamic minds in the bigger picture and for the long run?
So I submit that they are not our trusted and true friends in any way, shape, form or manner as are our Western friends and allies who have the exact same world view as us. In the end, the UAE want 'allah' to reign over the earth, and their government is based on this reality. You can't even get a bank loan there unless you prove it's in 'allah's best interests.
Bump
Here's one about the UAE and black market nuclear trafficking:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1077543/posts
The dollar is the only currency accepted for oil purchases, which allows us to print them indiscriminately.
Anybody who threatens the dollar's reserve status (Saddam, Iran, Chavez, Putin) will feel the cold hard steel of the US military.
Any other agenda is a convenient facade (democracy, terrorism, etc.) because the bottom line is our standard of living.
BUMP
I'd say kick out the Chinese military that is running Long Beach California Naval Ports before we stop the Dubai deal. At least there is some reasoning to the Dubai deal to gain intelligence and to reward an ally in the war on Terror.
Sorry Bill , there are no moderate Moose-limbs, just cowards. Let's start a war they will never forget. When western powers fight they are the most efficient ruthless killing machines the world has ever see. Then and only then will there be "moderate" moose-limbs. Start killing by the clock. It must be "total war"
Unless there are large changes, no...the liberals amongst us will get many of us killed and will find a way to create defeat.
Yes but a UAE company isn't the totalitiy of all UAE residents or their government. If a US company abetted Tim McVeigh or a militia with seditious intent does that mean the US is intent on sedition against itself?
Still, think how much trouble we could have saved if that absolute imbicile-monkey-in-a-suit Carter had helped the Shah Of Iran when he needed us.
I believe that we should continue to engage the UAE. I'm not arguing in favor of Port Security, because I simply am not comfortable nor familiar with all the facts. Yet we have to consider the implications of alienating yet another even "partial allie".
The company in this case is in fact owned by the government of the UAE - it's not a private company. That goverment is an autocratic minority government where an overwhelming majority of the people whom they rule are enemies of the US. Moreover, it's an Islamic government, one that votes against us in the UN like a Democrat voting against a Bush initiative.
Going back to the fundamentals on this, what makes our port operations the business of the government of the UAE? It just seems so detatched from the legitimate functions of a government that one has to ask how they passed a security review.
Our ports - like our borders - are already a known weakness. Obtaining an interest in those ports therefore is something that could directly further the enemy's goals, and is very likely to be his choice. This administration already has demonstrated clearly it does not understand the concept of sovereignty and thus its word is not good enough in this arena.
remarks by President Bush, National Cathedral, 9/14/2001.
Is an Islamic autocracy a moderate and modern government?
The UAE are not democratic, but they are not islamic fundamentalists, and they are working through western-style economic systems to modernize. They live in a crappy neighborhood, but they have no use for the savages who lurk around them. They have been partners with us for years, since the seventies, to my personal knowledge, long before the current round of jihad broke out. The President is being consistent with existing policies in supporting trade with them now.
"Our ports - like our borders - are already a known weakness. Obtaining an interest in those ports therefore is something that could directly further the enemy's goals, and is very likely to be his choice."
What you said BUMP!
It does matter in terms of allegiance. When is putting your life on the line a trivial matter.
I missed that story, who was this SF guy?
I worked with the UAE SOF and they get it. They are in for the win against Islamofascism. I realize that the reaction is not to trust Arabs but this is a Arab civil war, in the end more muslims will die fighting the facists then westerners, et al.
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.