Posted on 10/06/2001 7:26:35 AM PDT by white trash redneck
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:03:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The answer to terrorism? Colonialism.
The West has no alternative but to wage war against states that habitually aid terrorists. President Bush warns that the war may be long, but he has not, perhaps, yet grasped that this may entail long-term political obligations for America--and possibly its European allies as well. For the nearest historical parallel--the war against piracy in the 19th century--was an important element in the expansion of colonialism. It could be that a new form of colony, the Western-administered former terrorist state, is only just over the horizon.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This third mention ignores the most salient point, that against the Barbary Pirates we declared war without naming a nation as the "enemy." Same situation here. We then pursued them wherever we found them. Same situation here.
As for the colonialism or "mandate" situation, the United States is not going back into that thicket. Some nations are too backward for institutions such as democracy and individual freedom, press freedom, etc., to survive, much less thrive.
But as long as whatever governments exist when this War is over, tremble in their boots, sandals, bare feet, whatever, over the thought of attacking the US, that will be sufficient for now.
See the second click link below for the FIRST discussion that appeared on the Internet "media" of the parallels between the Barbary Pirate War and the War on Terrorism.
Since the end of the last colonial era, the answer was, the U.S. taxpayers paid for it, and maybe a few Swedes and Brits. But that answer simply won't work if we end up governing large territories and take on the job of bringing millions of impoverished people into the modern economic world.
The only practical answers is that these protectorates must be self-supporting. I.e., the taxes should be imposed on the protectorate states, not on hapless American wage-earners. This means, of course, a full return to colonial policies. But most people would rather be moderately taxed to pay for a just and stable government rather than heavily taxed to pay for corrupt dictators. So it is workable. But fifty years of anti-colonial discourse will have to be undone first.
Yes, Ann Coulter is often ahead of her time.
That's the answer
Hey, at least it's not as bad as what the Roman Empire did to deal with a certain annoying North African state called Carthage.
(For those who didn't study much history, the Romans finally got fed up with Carthage, sent an army which took the city, killed all the men, enslaved the women and children and dispersed them throughout the Empire, then leveled the city and spread salt on the ground so nothing would ever grow there again)
Whazzup?
This is fundamental, and until we learn to not apply our system of government and mores of behavior to places not ready for it, we are doomed to failure. A prime example is South Africa, which is running rapidly down the path to internal implosion. The part of South Africa which could operate with the above freedoms was removed from power, and many were given the franchise who had no understanding whatsoever of the above concepts.
You can't hand a Republic to a mass of uneducated people and expect it to survive. Let's hope that isn't something that gets tried in the end game of The Terrorist War.
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.