Posted on 05/11/2007 5:39:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The capture of the "Fort Dix Six" has inspired liberals to dust off and republish their "hearts and minds" mantra, which might sound wonderful to some, but bears more sober consideration. Before we can even consider whether winning hearts and minds is a remotely realistic goal, we need to determine whose hearts and minds we're talking about and what "winning hearts and minds" actually means.
Do liberals mean we should convince existing terrorists that diplomacy is a superior path to achieving their goals? That tolerance of other religions is the morally superior position? That women are entitled to dignity and equal rights? That the United Sates and Israel really aren't that evil? That their extreme brand of Islam is misguided?
Surely we can all agree that if we're talking about existing jihadists, these goals are quixotic. You are never going to tame a large percentage of "holy warriors" – and there are more of them worldwide than we would like to think. It's not like they haven't thought about it and considered the options. It's not like these types haven't been around for more than a thousand years.
Or, are liberals talking about winning the hearts and minds of potential terrorists? If so, do they plan on sending ambassadors from the National Education Association to Middle East madrassas, where children are being indoctrinated to hate the West? The NEA would first have to purge itself of its own contempt for Western civilization.
Or, are they talking about sending Christian missionaries in droves to evangelize? You've got to be kidding. Christian missionaries are Christian fundamentalists, and those fundies, we're told, are as bad as Muslim fundies.
Perhaps what liberals mean by winning hearts and minds is that we should do a better job of getting our own house in order and showing the rest of the world we are not "ugly Americans": imperialists, militarists or torturers. We are a loving, tolerant, multicultural society that doesn't start "pre-emptive wars of choice" against sovereign nations or interfere in "civil wars."
But here, again, that could be an unreachable goal, since many liberals believe – and are broadcasting loudly and clearly throughout the world – that we have become imperialists, torturers and militarists, and that we are intermeddling in a civil war in Iraq.
Even if we were to all adopt the predominately secular liberal vision (God forbid) and try to persuade jihadists of the superiority of moral relativism, multiculturalism, tolerance, diversity and licentiousness, we'd have an even tougher time converting jihadists and potential jihadists, who are utterly hostile to all of that. But assuming, for the sake of argument, that this impossible goal were possible, it would still take centuries. In the meantime, the IEDs and body bags would grow exponentially as a result of our reckless appeasement.
However muddled this concept of "winning hearts and minds" is, it does highlight the gravity of the ongoing debate about the nature of the enemy (and whether he is truly even the enemy), and whether we should meet this enemy (or non-enemy) with military violence on the one hand, or appeasement, diplomacy or, if all else fails, measured law enforcement on the other.
This is not to suggest we Americans shouldn't put our best foot forward. But to a great extent we are already doing precisely that, by helping Iraqis to establish self-rule and the wonderful humanitarian work we are performing in Iraq and elsewhere. Sadly, you'll never hear about either of these from the mainstream media, who are obviously committed to suppressing news that will enhance America's international image.
The reality is that we are at war against a vicious, relentless and implacable global enemy whose mission, partially like our Cold War enemy, is world domination and submission. By underestimating its resolve and its global reach, by pretending it is not the primary causal agent in the Iraq war and behind nearly every act of jihad throughout the globe, including inside the United States, we handicap ourselves even more than we already are in fighting a conscienceless enemy that fights asymmetrically and targets innocent civilians.
To get a real glimpse of the way liberals are viewing this global war all you have to do is listen to their analyses, envisioning the enemy, in its entirety, as Osama, the Taliban and a mere handful of others. All you have to do is observe their painful efforts to legislate away the Iraq theater portion of the global war on terror.
If and when the war shifts more prominently to our shores, will they suggest we withdraw from here, too? It's time for us all to wake up.
We just need to get rid of the socialist liberals — then America could get back to dealing with reality instead of their little socialist nation they are trying to create. We could even save our Constitution and our freedoms as well.
America does not NEED liberals.
“When ya’ got ‘em by the balls ... their hearts and minds follow.”
An old saying from the Viet Nam era.
The issue is this: what happens when tolerance reaches the edge and is expected to tolerate.....intolerance? Do we embrace the “right” of cruel dictators to run their countries as they see fit? Do we embrace the “right” of fanatic cults to degrade and enslave females? Do we embrace the “right” of lunatic governments to possess nuclear weapons if they are wily enough to obtain them?
Bump!
We are already there and have been for some time.
We are to tolerate militant islamists who want to kill us for being non-muslims.
We are to tolerate those who do not tolerate us. We are to tolerate the intolerable.
This also goes for tolerating black racism, intolerant and militant gays, etc.
Well said.
The Bill of Rights...............
We believe All people are created equal
with certain inalienable rights....
the right to life...liberty....and the pursuit of happiness....
If this IS what we believe, then we do NOT have to tolerate the intolerable. We CAN and SHOULD fight oppressors, dictators and those who deprive others of the rights we hold inalienable. It is our duty. Tolerance of evil is evil.
The far left hasn’t a clue. What they don’t realize is Muslims hate the Godless even more than those that believe in God. They’ll use the left to achieve their goals and then turn on them with a vengeance. So the left can try brown nosing muslims all they want but in the end they’ll end up like everyone else that isn’t muslim. Muslims want all, not what is theirs, but yours, mine and everyone else’s. People better wake up and realize you can not deal with these fanatics.
Well, the Left once again controls the meaning of words to control the debate. When the Left uses the word “tolerance”, they mean a view they can accept, and that every one else must accept as well. They don’t mean all views, for example, like those held by conservatives.
The conservative on the other hand rejects the need to be “tolerant” of ideas that are patently loony or those that are at odds with timeless principles.
I don’t have to tolerate the idea that it is right to steal from my neighbor, or that he has the right to steal from me. It would be *stupid* and *destructive* for me to even allow that such an absurdity must be considered.
To the Left, I am intolerant.
But what is missing here is a mention of the unwritten rule. The Right has rules it must follow. The rule for the Left is that there are no rules for the Left.
I made the mistake of stating that I would not put up with another cultures intolerance that leads to violence against others. I was promptly labeled ethnocentric, intolerant etc. When I challenged their thinking on discrimination by other cultures of an American...it is the American who is intolerant...
I was told I wasn't being a global earth citizen...
Ayup. “Orchides trahent, cordes sequerunt et mentes.” Or, (much) less elegantly, “testibus prehende, cordes et mentes venerunt.”
Otherwise clean 'em, oil ,em and lock and load.
Well said.
I think our main problem today is that 1/3 of the people are fence sitters. They claim to be the thoughtful ones who blow with the wind in mind and tolerate everything. To them there is nothing evil to fight.
The right thinking 1/3 like most of us here on FR see the enemies of our country, both internal and external, as the enemy and we want to oppose those internal and fight those external. Some politicians on our side, like Bush in some respects, try to be compromisers and the evil inside our borders just gets stronger.
The left thinking 1/3 see the right thinking 1/3 as the sole enemy of this country. They are willing to compromise only with our external enemies while fighting the the right thinkers to the death using any means possible. When people like Bush compromise with them, they take it and then stab him in the back.
I don't think there is the will to fight and preserve liberty in this country like we had as recently as the first half of the 20th century. People are more willing to vote for government benefits and "safety" (socialism) than than for liberty, freedom, and the defense thereof.
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.