Posted on 08/08/2007 5:33:29 AM PDT by expatguy
"It is absolutely outrageous and reprehensible for anyone to suggest attacks on holy sites, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish or those of any other religion ... Any suggestion that the defense of the American homeland or the defense of American interests would ever justify attacking holy sites or religious sites is just simply an idea that goes against the length or breadth of US history"
State Department spokesman Tom Casey
Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies in contemporary United States history has been the gross usurpation of our nation's State Department by those ignorant of history who would relentlessly promote and pursue a self-destructive and treasonous policy of accommodation and appeasement.
Ignorant of our nation's history, it is even more disturbing that a State Department spokesman would have the audacity to defile the sacrifice of those men and women who fought in the Battle of Monte Cassino or those who paved the way to victory for the dropping of the atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It goes without saying that those fateful decisions made at the time were controversial, but were nonetheless, necessary at the time, not only to ensure victory but to save American lives.
After 9/11 and up until now our policy with Pakistan's military dictatorship as well as Saudi Arabia has undeniably been one of accommodation and appeasement. A policy that history has repeatably shown us, leads to disaster. Why the United States would embark of on such a policy that has historically proven to be disastrous remains a mystery to many and can perhaps only be understood in the context of zeitgeist of which we are currently living. Decades of assiduous secularization and the adaptation of diversity and multiculturalism in lieu of the great melting pot has taken it's toll by morally weakening us, stripping us of our shared identity and leaving us bound by the chains of political correctness. Cultural relativism brought on by our misguided doctrine of multiculturalism has led us to question for the first time in history the very supremacy of our own democratic ideology, ironically though there can be no ideological supremacy without a sense of superiority, of which we are lacking, and which needless to say goes against the very tenets of multiculturalism. We've become a nation not only confused and divided but morally and spiritually weakened as well. Historians looking back one day will see with clarity how this ideology of multiculturalism was instrumental in compelling us to seek accommodation and appeasement with our adversaries, knowing full well the consequences.
The consequences that we are therefore forced to accept and live with is that we will perpetually remain cowering under the threat of a devastating conventional or nuclear attack, forking over our lunch money every month to a military dictatorship and hoping that we can perhaps delay for another day what we know in our hearts is ultimately inevitable.
And so, Republican hopeful Tom Tancredo steps forward and has the courage to ask an intriguing question for which he immediately faces the venomous wrath from a nation of quislings. "What deterrent do we have now?" - and the answer is none - we don't have a deterrent because our adopted policy of accommodation and appeasement does not call for nor require one. We are expected to sit defenseless and wait to be attacked choosing as Hamilton would say, "disgrace over danger".
To construe Tancredo's suggestion of bombing Mecca and Medina as a reckless act of retaliation and vengeance is grossly missing the point, and that is that we choose self-assertion over self-sacrifice and elect to adopt a doctrine of collective responsibility over a policy of accommodation and appeasement thereby viewing Islam in it's socio-political context as a political unit, a sort of suzerain or in the alternative, a borderless decentralized, virtual nation-state.
The doctrine of collective responsibility is nothing new, in fact it is and has always been the way that nations conduct their international affairs. In many ways our adopted policies now have attempted to elicit collective responsibility. Unfortunately a combined policy of punishment and placation has not served us well. Instead of viewing Islam as a single unit, we have bought into the propaganda that their exists a "moderate" and a "extremist" within Islam. The "extremists" receive the stick whereas the "moderates" receive the carrot. The collective responsibility comes about from the expectation on our part that the "moderates" will choose repay us for our benevolence and hopefully expose and isolate the "extremists" in their midst. There are a few instances of success, but overall the results have failed. Tancredo's suggestion would be to do away with the carrot and use the stick on Islam as a single entity and political unit, thereby holding all of the adherents to a collective responsibility.
The outrage to Tom Tancredo's suggestions seem to focus on two main issues of contention, the first being that such a policy would anger all the innocent and so-called moderate Muslims around the globe. My response to this is simple. That is the whole point of collective responsibility. Hopefully it will anger these moderates enough that they will take responsibility for their own brethren. Secondly and even more importantly is this simple question. On what basis should one's serenity ever trump my own safety and security?
The next issue of contention seems to be the very target itself. A entire city that remains to this very day completely off-limits to all non-Muslims. But why should should Mecca be any more significant than say London, Moscow or Washington?
Suffering from our own "conflict of conscience" and psychosis of self-hatred it would appear that Mecca and Medina have become our Achilles' heel rather than that of our adversaries. Sun Tzu once said that if "you know your enemy and know yourself," "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu also warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." This isn't about not being patriotic or not supporting the troops - it is about common sense and logic. It is a tragic mistake to let our enemies know our limitations.
Those that would ridicule Tom Tancredo's suggestion of using the doctrine of collective responsibility as a deterrent need to ask themselves if it is any more ridiculous than employing a doctrine of mutually assured destruction?
Like many Americans, I grew up in a different time - a time when we did not find ourselves bound by the chains of political correctness, a time when the size or the tenacity of our adversary did not intimidate us - a time when our President had the courage, foresight and resolve to know that accommodation and appeasement can only lead to disaster. Ronald Reagan didn't threaten to bomb a mosque or a religious site - no much worse - he threatened to turn an entire country into a parking lot, and the world believed him. We lived through a policy of "mutually assured destruction" with the Soviet Union and it served as a deterrent.
No one walked around in the 70's and 80's with their finger in their butt mumbling about a "War on Collectivism" and with our State Department going on high alert issuing profound apologies whenever someone decided to take a dump on Lenin's Book of Marx. We knew who the enemy was and we were not afraid to name them. Disgrace over danger was never an option.
You and I have a choice to make. We can give up our dreams of freedom and liberty and continue with a policy of accommodation and appeasement, one that gives no choice between war and peace, only between fight and surrender or we can stand together and demand once and for all that our elected leaders get up off their knees and lead.
No more aid for Pakistan or for Saudi Arabia or for any nation that does not share our democratic principles. No more foot basins, no more special prayer rooms. No more accommodation and no more appeasement.
Tancredo should broaden the scope of his threat;
read “Kernel of Evil” in the Aug 7 Wall Street Journal, detailing Saudi Arabia’s initiation of, and support for, islamic terrorism at every level from recruitment, to financing, to supplying everyone from the leaders to the foot-soldiers.
++Pinging the Cool People and the Listholders++
The battle will be all the more bloodier for our children and grandchildren.
Thanks for the ping!
OUTSTANDING!
L
You and I have a choice to make. We can give up our dreams of freedom and liberty and continue with a policy of accommodation and appeasement, one that gives no choice between war and peace, only between fight and surrender or we can stand together and demand once and for all that our elected leaders get up off their knees and lead.
No more aid for Pakistan or for Saudi Arabia or for any nation that does not share our democratic principles. No more foot basins, no more special prayer rooms. No more accommodation and no more appeasement.<<<<
Excellent article and so very true.
Thank you for posting it, maybe the name should be:
“WAKE UP AMERICA”.
Everyone should read this article................
I think appeasment is way too strong here. Rather, what we have is a policy of divide and conquer. There was an article outlining the many ways the Bush admin has worked to keep other countries out of this fight, including millenium challenge fund grants. One thing that could have happened when we invaded Iraq is that Iran and Syria could have opened two fronts. We could not have fought them off with 150,000 soldiers. The lack of historical knowledge of many shows up in their inability to imagine what a real fiasco would have looked like.
What is a suprise to me is that while Rep. Tom Tancrado says what a lot of Americans are thinking he ends up being savaged alive, but YET, if Sen. Barack Obama says anything about going into Paki to take out AQ, then no big deal, just an opinion on the part of Sen. Barack.
Thanks, Granny.
When terrorists hide behind the “woman’s skirt” for training and planning their heinous acts, then those mosques ahould have a huge bull’s eye painted on the dome. There should be no sanctuary, holy or not, for them.
I imagine our forefathers spinning in their graves over the ludicrous policies this country is following.
It is as simple as the President said in the beginning, "You are either with us, or against us".
Nuking Mecca was a stupid idea the 1st time I heard it on 9-11-01, it was a stupid idea when Tom Tancredo said it the 1st time, it was a stupid idea the last time he said it. Stupid ideas don’t stop being stupid by being repeated over and over.
Rep. Tom Tancrado says what a lot of Americans are thinking
Thinking? or Feeling?
There are many terrorist targets, both direct and indirect, that we might address ourselves to long before we ever considered the nuclear option. I would expect a US President to possess the sort of maturity, restraint, and situational awareness necessary to effectively carry on what will be a very long struggle.
Indeed. Thank you so much for your insights!
the state department sees itself as in competition with the military.
To understand the statedepartment one need only look at left vs conservative.
The left does not want solutions they only want ISSUES.
The state department does NOT want solutions they only want issues which require eternal negotiations. The state department is NOT in the solutions business.
The military provides solutions, its mission IS solutions. Solutions put state department employees out of business. See the USSR, all those diplomates were shifted to the Balkans. The Balkans blood bath is a state department created problem.
Did you have the same reservations about the policy of mutually assured destruction. How about we just say that we will destroy the entire country of Saudi Arabia.
Not specifically directed at you and no offense, but I personally get offended when I see the people reminding us the size of our adversary - as if it had any relevance.
What you seem to be saying is that your resolve is incumbent upon the size of your enemy.
--
"But to advertise it as a strategic option would needlessly inflame Muslim sentiment, reducing rather than enhancing our actionable options."
Without announcing it, how does it become a deterrent?
And let me get this straight... "needlessly inflame" ~ that sounds almost like fear. I personally could care less if Muslims get pissed off.
I believe though that I asked a legitimate question:
On what basis should one's serenity ever trump my own safety and security?
OKAY you have me convinced! /sarc
Did you have the same reservations about the policy of mutually assured destruction?
Yes - I thought it was foolish in the extreme, as did Ronald Reagan. Instead of threatening nuclear retaliation for specifically-named acts (which is poor tactics; let them guess instead), we ought to be rooting out the terrorists and their supporters. We don't have to nuke the Saudis, for example. We can stop coddling the bastards: expose their support for radical mosques and madrassas; seize and freeze their domestic assets, gather intelligence on their activities and use police and military power as necessary in our interests. (And screw the State Department).
What you seem to be saying is that your resolve is incumbent upon the size of your enemy.
The size of our adversary is not beside the point - it is a proper military consideration in a time of war. The capabilities, will, organization, structure, location, assets, and size of one's enemy dictate how you ought to fight them. One's resolve ought never be dependent on the size of one's adversaries. That much is true. But one would be foolish not to take into account how many of "them" there are and where they are located.
Without announcing it, how does it become a deterrent?
It becomes a deterrent by refusing to exclude it (the nuclear option) as a possibility while maintaining the clear ability to act.
I personally could care less if Muslims get pissed off.
I, for one, couldn't care less how they feel about us. I know what you meant. I'm just saying that there is a tactical advantage to be gained through ambiguity: they need to know that we can act, but they shouldn't ever know if or how we would respond to a specific threat or action.
On what basis should one's serenity ever trump my own safety and security?
I'm not sure, and I want to answer fairly. Whose serenity do you mean, and what do you mean by "serenity"?
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.