Posted on 09/30/2001 9:31:07 AM PDT by annalex
You advocate the invasion and occupation of countries and the setting up of puppet governments wherever they have a government that you don't approve of.
I have never said a puppet government or one run by the U.S.. Never have I advocated us controlling their government. We simply must go in and form alliances with all tribes and sects of Afghanistan, in order to insure that a truly democratic government comes into power.
As long as they pose no threat to us or other nations, and they do not ignore human rights, I see no need for further interference. However I do believe that they will plead for assistance and advice.
Tony Snow hit the nail right on the head today. If these people knew prosperity and true Liberty, they would not be so desperate for extremism, and so willing to give their life for an extreme cause. History has shown this to be true.
But since you are so adamant in my misrepresentation of your position, I would be nice if you would present it and not simply criticize all others.
So, let's take away all other situations, so you cannot pose blame elsewhere. Let's deal with the current situation and the current situation only.
You have said that you support eliminating those whom have attacked us and those who support them. Therefore you must support the U.S. assisting in bringing about the fall of the Taliban. Now once it has been eliminated there will still be a nation in Chaos.
What we have is history that PROVES that by allowing that Chaos to exist, you allow the extreme and most mighty of the society to take over and rule in tyranny.
Now what is your solution. From what I have read in your posts, it appears that you wish to wipe our hands once again and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves.
Really sir, what I suggest is quite clear. You just don't think that it is "enough;" i.e., it doesn't satisfy your premise, or should I say, your ambitions. My strategy is in fact MORE substantive than what you suggest, simply because it is ACHIEVABLE (unlike your proposition of dumping the welfare state and builiding a functional military on a crash basis so that we can construct an empire in the Middle East (an oxymoron if I have ever heard of one) as if it was either politically possible in Congress or wouldn't induce a symmentrical response in the rest of the world). My proposal won't immerse us in a world war followed by global tyranny (which is what I think would be the result of what you advocate) because we would be hard at work at home building both an economic and military fortress America with power concentrated upon the strength, creativity, and liberty of its citizens instead of a standing army roving the planet enriching its corporate aristocracy. It is thus a proposition CAPABLE of selectively protecting itself from its enemies on a preemptive baisis as we are now conducting in Afganistan and I hope elsewhere. That selective projection of power, however, does NOT mean that we should run those countries (as you desire). We quite simply lack the wherewithal to do it without destroying ourselves and opening ourselves up to successful attack.
Further, imperial power has the awful propensity for the politically domanant to turn it to corrupted purposes on a grand scale, especially as in Africa but as is now happening across the AMERICAN West (talk about blowback!). I take it you didn't READ #34 (and its sources) or do you simply discount it? Our racist inattention to what has been done (largely by liberills and Europeans) reflects upon us by virtue of the protection our "empire" afforded (especially in Africa). As the West burns and is over-run by weeds it will likely suffer a similar fate at the hands of imperial bureaucratic socialism (what I call feudal fascism). Such ecological destruction has brought the world a series of tragedies of monstrous proportion as the people of Siberia will surely attest. Similar actions as the banning of DDT or the foot dragging over AIDS may have made the Club of Rome happy, but I am certain that God will hold us accountable for the misery produced in the pursuit of mammon by those currently in charge of that imperial culture with which you are so apparently enamoured. If nothing else, there are those in the West who will surely do so by force themselves.
Read the book. There is a better way.
As a nation we indeed have the options of strengthening our defenses domestically, as well as taking the war to the enemy's territory, and we can be sure that both will be explored in some proportion. As a libertarian I see a greater peril to our freedoms in the defensive approach, and as a student of history, I know that a purely defensive military posture leads to defeat. Hence, in order to protect our freedom I suggest projection of force in the Middle East that would include a direct military action, a proxy military action, and various degrees of submission of local governments to our imperial wishes. I am concerned by the squeamishness of so many about calling things what they are: imperialism. I am concerned even more by the fact that America, as you point out, has a middling record of building and maintaining an empire. However, I believe that the imperial needs will come into focus soon, and become a national consensus. In this effort we must not fail, because bunkering down and retaliatory strikes alone will not prevent future attacks even if the present Al Qaeda network is demolished. The resources for the effort can come from no other place but domestic programs.
I don't want to have this discussion of our strategic response to Arab militancy sidetracked into world ecology, Irish worker movement, or anything else.
You will note the following:
1. Bombardment from the air will be ineffective.
2. Massive Gulf War-style assault will be impossible
3. Helicopter brigades can be effective within the limits of their tactical objective.
4. The country of Afghanistan really isn't; it is a cartographical artifact that can be partitioned between its heighbors.
It appears that a coalition of Arab or Farsi forces that would partition Afghanistan between themselves with our tactical assistance is the most appealing course of the war. Our assistance will be given in return for cooperation in the areas of our security concerns. Our continuing military presence in the occupying countries for years after the military phase is over is a virtual certainty.
That is why I mentioned it. Yours is IMO, a distorted perception of risk. I note that since your reading of that cited article you have tempered your over-ambitious reading of our military capability.
Aside from that, you mistake my posture of defense of homeland alone by purely defensive tactical means. I refer to defensive PURPOSE in my reference to "fortress America"; i.e., that which the Constitution allows and to which our government is morally mandated. It certainly doesn't list "provide for the common conquest" in the Preamble now matter how happy that would make Israel. The offensive tactical capability in service to that purpose starts with excellent intelligence and covert operations capabilities backed up by rapid projection of tactical military assets. It is backed up by civil defense, which has more than merely obvious constituents.
The historic problem has been that they covert actions have been covertly or even illegally funded. To allow that funding to be covert has induced many of the problems to which we now respond. An example is using the drug trade to finance such policy and the criminal industry that has grown up around it.
Both of these concepts point to a common enemy, one that USES international terrorism as a proxy for the projection of its interests and the means to weaken the rule of law under a republican government and justify extension of the infrastructure of tyranny. It is that to which I speak, as so many of its treasonous lieutenants operate within our midst. Hence my reference to its broader scope. That is not off the subject at all.
I never stated that the military operations in Afghanistan would be easy; for my purposes on this thread it was sufficient to note that they are inevitable. The difficulty of the terrain is another argument to do the military part once, and not do repeated retaliatory strikes after each attack.
The article you cited did NOTHING to support global imperialism. It merely articulated the implaccable nature of a religious war with which I have no argument. That does not mean that the strategy you propose is either within our capability or that it would work. I prefer to nudge Islam into the inevitable managed implosion.
My main thesis is that what we have is a civilizational struggle. The necessity of imperialism is a corollary, which, indeed, Louis Rene Beres does not make.
It is true that the warrior Arab civilization is primarily imploding, and the explosions we see are a secondary effect. That is why the victory will be ours even if we do very little; but it is the duty of our government to limit the damage to its geographical origins and accelerate the demolition.
The worst enemy of an Islamic militant is then not the Western man, a Jew or an American; not his corrupt and dictatorial national ruler, -- it is his neighbor running a coffee shop, a car dealer, a tourist guide: a modest economic man, nominally his fellow Muslim, crossing over to the global economic network and ultimately -- to the ascending Western Civilization.In other words, the Islamic militant is hostile first of all to the First Amendment--to the idea of live-and-let-live tolerance and aggressive "We must all hang together or surely we will all hang seperately" cooperation which formed this nation and has gradually coopted more diversity within it.
The fact is that our civilization produces all kinds. But the mullahs in their caves may not know that, and beside they don't want any other kind. They only want monks and soldiers.
"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate world politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."
My reading list is getting longer. Can't wait till someone here tells me to post less and read more.
LOL, Great call. I was going to make that same point but after repeated attempts to wade through the mire, I thought, I must be crazy as he is to even try again.
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.