Posted on 11/18/2002 12:59:04 PM PST by JohnGalt
November 14, 2002
THE RETURN OF OSAMA BIN LADEN by Thomas Fleming
Americans, since September 11, 2001, have been lying in their beds with the covers pulled up over their heads. They have allowed themselves to be persuaded that peace and order have been restored to Afghanistan; they have accepted the Bush administration's argument that we can attack Iraq without provoking more acts of terrorism against the United States; they have tried their hardest to believe the President's characterization of Islam as a "religion of peace" and stolidly sat through news reports without ever suspecting that there was some connection between the Chechyn hostage crisis in Moscow, the terrorist attack in Bali, and the terror-spree of John Mohammed in the D.C. area; and they even thought Osama bin Laden was dead, though there was no evidence for his death except for Secretary Rumsfeld's wishful thinking that the invasion of Afghanistan accomplished something.
Well, Osama is back, ripping back the covers and forcing us to stare the bogeyman in the face. Gangsters, terrorists, and warlords (many of them former Taliban leaders) are tearing Afghanistan apart and making people sigh for the good old days when the Taliban kept some semblance of order. Even allowing for Osama's characteristic exaggeration, the Saudi leader has put his cards on the table: "For how long will fear, massacres, destruction, exile, orphanhood, and widowhood be our lot, while security, stability, and joy remain yours alone? As you kill, you will be killed; as you raid, you will be raided." The New York Times, with the unintended wit that only comes from stupidity, headlined the story, "New recording may be threat from Bin Laden."
Osama's declaration, if it proves to be authentic, could not come at a worse time for the Bush administration. After last week's victory in the Security Council, the President and his advisors were already toasting to victory over Iraq, their glasses filled to the brim the finest vintage from the grapes of wrath (Mogen David 2002?). And now the bogeyman reminds them that practitioners of the religion of peace, on Bali, in the United States, in the Middle East, in Russia, are continuing to murder their Christian and post-Christian enemies. "As you kill, you will be killed." Doesn't seem fair, somehow. The Clinton Doctrine, taken over by the decision-makers of the Bush administration (Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz), was clear: Right or wrong, justified or not, the government of the United States can make war with impunity. In a strict sense, this is true. Government officials, hiding in their bunkers, had nothing to fear on September 11; it was only the rest of us who were exposed.
I do not entirely blame the Bush administration for concealing the facts from us. Americans fear the truth and are unable to accept any version of reality that does not come in the starkest outline of black and white. How else to explain the rush among the evangelicals to support Israel at all cost, turning a blind eye to the crimes of past-and-present Israeli political leaders such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir (both terrorists), and Ariel Sharon (war criminal), and to the danger posed by the lunatic fringe element led by Benjamin Netanyahu? How else to explain the unqualified defense of Muslims shown by leftists, pacifists, and some antiwar libertarians?
Life can be complicated. It is possible to work for the survival of Israel without endorsing the policies of Sharon and Netanyahu; it is equally possible to condemn the corruption and bad faith of Yasir Arafat, without wishing to see the Palestinians pushed into the sea. (One Zionist friend, a prominent columnist, told me recently that he could be even-handed with the Palestinians: Smite them with one hand and drive them into the sea with the other.) It is even possible to understand that Muslims (not just "radical Islamicists") around the world represent a greater danger to the West than the combined forces of Communism and Nazism ever did, without wishing to murder innocent Muslims in their beds.
I am neither a pacifist nor an isolationist. America has become a great power and is stuck with the role, for the time being. The best great-power policy at this moment would be to draw in our horns, bring back the troops from the Balkans and from other trouble-spots around the world, and coerce Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan into a reasonable settlement of the crisis, dictated by the U.S., our European allies, and Russia. By "reasonable," I mean one that is arranged by impartial Westerners who have neither Arabic nor Israeli ties of blood or sentiment.
It the Bush administration can back up its claims against Saddam Hussein, then strikes against Iraqi weapons factories and military installations may well be justifiable, but not a full-scale war that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousand of civilians and destroy what little of the fragile infrastructure remains. But no reasonable solution can be discussed, much less implemented, so long as the political classes continue to lie to us, pretending that Mohammad did not found a religion of war and terrorism, covering up the reality of the situation in Palestine, incessantly repeating the mantra "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," as if the United States were not the world's greatest producer and supplier of such weapons, as if our government had not armed, not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.
I understand the quandary in which the administration finds itself. The American people are dumb, ignorant beyond belief, even compared with Europeans. Our educational system ensures that we know neither history nor geography, and every administration during my lifetime has preferred to use propaganda (rather than information) to justify its policies. There is a limit, however, to what Americans will accept. More and more of us are beginning to suspect that maybe unlimited Islamic infiltration of our country is not a good thing, and if they ever learn (in the current cant) to connect the dots between U.S. policy in the Middle East and terrorist attacks on American civilians, there will be hell to pay.
Intelligent and patriotic Israelis know this, which is why they are outraged by the part played by evangelicals in the United States, stirring up Israel to bring on the end of the Jewish people and the world. Osama bin Laden has given Americans the proverbial wake-up call. Is anybody going to pick up the phone?
You mean Begin deliberately targeted random, innocent civilians and killed them?
I never knew that.
Look up the history of Jewish terrorism under the British mandate of Palestine. It isn't a particularly pretty picture. Most Israelis like to pretend it didn't exist.
They killed mostly Arabs. But they also killed Jews and Brits. Some of their attacks were semi-legitimate urban warfare attacks on armed opponents, police and soldiers. Others were terrorism in its pure sense.
Swap "Taliban" for "former Soviets" and "Afghanistan" for "Russia," and you have the EXACT argument many used in from 1989 onward about supposed U.S. failures in dealing with the breakup of the Soviet Union. This author is all over the place in his handwringing and does not seem to have a particular ideological anchor. For this reason, there are nuggets in his article with which people from across the political spectrum can agree. But his bottom line is the same old familiar blame-America screed.
Osama's declaration, if it proves to be authentic, could not come at a worse time for the Bush administration. After last week's victory in the Security Council, the President and his advisors were already toasting to victory over Iraq, their glasses filled to the brim the finest vintage from the grapes of wrath (Mogen David 2002?).
Idiotic swipe at Israel. Isreal was a loser in 1991 and will be again. Israel will be forced to lose security and take hits so the US can get help from Arab states.
And now the bogeyman reminds them that practitioners of the religion of peace, on Bali, in the United States, in the Middle East, in Russia, are continuing to murder their Christian and post-Christian enemies.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?
The Clinton Doctrine, taken over by the decision-makers of the Bush administration (Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz), was clear: Right or wrong, justified or not, the government of the United States can make war with impunity. In a strict sense, this is true. Government officials, hiding in their bunkers, had nothing to fear on September 11; it was only the rest of us who were exposed.
Mr. Fleming has just shown his stupidty. That was not the Clinton doctrine. It has been teh policy of every president since George Washington. Perhaps Mr. Flemming should read up on the Quasi War, the Barbary Pirates fight, a few hundred small actions in the pacific in the 19th century over trade....
I do not entirely blame the Bush administration for concealing the facts from us. Americans fear the truth and are unable to accept any version of reality that does not come in the starkest outline of black and white. How else to explain the rush among the evangelicals to support Israel at all cost, turning a blind eye to the crimes of past-and-present Israeli political leaders such as Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir (both terrorists), and Ariel Sharon (war criminal), and to the danger posed by the lunatic fringe element led by Benjamin Netanyahu?
Because these are cobnservatives, you know the people that Flemming would suppoert if he were not a paleo-confederate.
How else to explain the unqualified defense of Muslims shown by leftists, pacifists, and some antiwar libertarians?
And the cowardly paleo-cons who would preffer to give into Islamist demands and throw our allies to the alligator in the hope we are eaten last?
Life can be complicated. It is possible to work for the survival of Israel without endorsing the policies of Sharon and Netanyahu;
When the Reconquista of Aztlan becomes violent, I expect Fleming to call for surrender! Or is he being intellectually dishonest in support of his cowardly agenda?
it is equally possible to condemn the corruption and bad faith of Yasir Arafat, without wishing to see the Palestinians pushed into the sea.
Who is talking about ethnically cleansing Jordan? Ow wait, Flemming buys the leftist-Arab nationalist-Islamist line on Israel. My bad.
It is even possible to understand that Muslims (not just "radical Islamicists") around the world represent a greater danger to the West than the combined forces of Communism and Nazism ever did, without wishing to murder innocent Muslims in their beds.
Straw man alert. No sane person is calling for killing all Muslims. Teh most extreme interventionists only want to overthrow the governments and reform thier societies.
I am neither a pacifist nor an isolationist. America has become a great power and is stuck with the role, for the time being. The best great-power policy at this moment would be to draw in our horns, bring back the troops from the Balkans and from other trouble-spots around the world, and coerce Israel, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan into a reasonable settlement of the crisis, dictated by the U.S., our European allies, and Russia. By "reasonable," I mean one that is arranged by impartial Westerners who have neither Arabic nor Israeli ties of blood or sentiment.
Sell out our allies in the hope that the Islamists only mean half of their Mein Kampf. Czeco... er Israel is expendable as was Lebanon.
It the Bush administration can back up its claims against Saddam Hussein, then strikes against Iraqi weapons factories and military installations may well be justifiable, but not a full-scale war that will cause the deaths of hundreds of thousand of civilians and destroy what little of the fragile infrastructure remains. But no reasonable solution can be discussed, much less implemented, so long as the political classes continue to lie to us, pretending that Mohammad did not found a religion of war and terrorism, covering up the reality of the situation in Palestine, incessantly repeating the mantra "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," as if the United States were not the world's greatest producer and supplier of such weapons, as if our government had not armed, not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.
Interesting. Small truths to hide lies.
The US did not arm Al Qaeuda. This would be the standard leftist agitprop of greens except for the fact that a so-called rightist is righting it. What a useful idiot.
How do we know that Hitler is dead??? We never saw the body!
How long is this going to take? After all, it took Hillary 2 years to surrender her law firm billing records.
We don't negotiate with terrorists. If the terrorists demand that we not attack Iraq (otherwise more American civilians will be targeted) then they are trying to get us over a barrell. Freedom is lost, the terrorists win.
Where was the barf alert?
Intellectual giant...trying reading the article. Best to not post and be thought a fool than post and remove all doubt.
The author discounts freewill.
Sure, our educational system doesn't teach us history and geography, BUT it can't ensure that we will not learn such.
Do you neo-cons long for the good old days of the Cold War when you could just call anyone you disagreed with a Communist? Either make the case that Fleming supports bin Laden or leave hyberole alone. Liberals have destroyed any ability you might have had to communicate with the outside world.
Idiotic swipe at Israel. Isreal was a loser in 1991 and will be again. Israel will be forced to lose security and take hits so the US can get help from Arab states.
I am begining to think you did not read the article.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?
Ahh, that hallmark of modern American 'conservatives', employing the same logic used by Kaiser Wilhelm-- oh wait, he wasn't an American.
Mr. Fleming has just shown his stupidty. That was not the Clinton doctrine. It has been the policy of every president since George Washington. Perhaps Mr. Flemming should read up on the Quasi War, the Barbary Pirates fight, a few hundred small actions in the pacific in the 19th century over trade....
Your "In Defense of Bill Clinton" paragraph is very moving...
And the cowardly paleo-cons who would preffer to give into Islamist demands and throw our allies to the alligator in the hope we are eaten last?
Calling someone a coward on an anonymous posting board is the definition of courage...
But this was your topper:
Straw man alert. No sane person is calling for killing all Muslims. Teh most extreme interventionists only want to overthrow the governments and reform thier societies.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?
Fleming suggest a good policy might be to start by not letting the barbarians into the city...you ignore (probably cannot comprehend) that policy idea as it is actually a logical place to start.
I am not sure what your point is in relation to the current political reality.
My point was about the author.
John Galt responded
Do you neo-cons long for the good old days of the Cold War when you could just call anyone you disagreed with a Communist? Either make the case that Fleming supports bin Laden or leave hyberole alone. Liberals have destroyed any ability you might have had to communicate with the outside world.
1. I am not a neo-con. I am a nationalist standing up for Western Civ.
2. The Cold War is no more over today than World War 2 was over with the capitulation of italy and Germany. China, Cuba, Vietnam,... are still communist.
3. I am not saying that Fleming supports Bin Laden directly. Rather, his position is analogous to the Libertarians who opposed the Vietnam war. He is willing to write off the rest of the world, imagining that we will be safe.
"So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us?"
Ahh, that hallmark of modern American 'conservatives', employing the same logic used by Kaiser Wilhelm-- oh wait, he wasn't an American.
When did Wilhelm or his ancestors face a foreign religion/ideology like this? We are not dealing with a competing nation-state. We are dealing with an ideological religious construct whihc wishes to conquer us.
"Mr. Fleming has just shown his stupidty. That was not the Clinton doctrine. It has been the policy of every president since George Washington. Perhaps Mr. Flemming should read up on the Quasi War, the Barbary Pirates fight, a few hundred small actions in the pacific in the 19th century over trade.... "
Your "In Defense of Bill Clinton" paragraph is very moving...
Perhaps you didn't read my comment. My point that Presidents have made war is irrespective of the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton Doctrine is aggressive leftist multilateralism. Look at Clinton and Gore pronouncements. Theirs would be a different strategy. Your extremist position blinds you to all differences.
"And the cowardly paleo-cons who would preffer to give into Islamist demands and throw our allies to the alligator in the hope we are eaten last?"
Calling someone a coward on an anonymous posting board is the definition of courage...
No. It is a description. Would you preffer that I use ornate language or get ot the point?
"Straw man alert. No sane person is calling for killing all Muslims. Teh most extreme interventionists only want to overthrow the governments and reform thier societies.
So, shouldn't we kill off the Islamists before they kill us? "
Fleming suggest a good policy might be to start by not letting the barbarians into the city...you ignore (probably cannot comprehend) that policy idea as it is actually a logical place to start.
I have never opposed restricting immigration to Muslims. Had you taken the time to read my page on FR, you would note an article I wrote last fall calling for such restrictions.
You rather use a straw man arguement than look at actual positions and see real differences. It doesn't match populist rhetoric.
When did Wilhelm or his ancestors face a foreign religion/ideology like this? We are not dealing with a competing nation-state. We are dealing with an ideological religious construct whihc wishes to conquer us.
Might be a good time to study the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by a Muslim radical (amongst other Serbian nationalists.)
1. I am not a neo-con. I am a nationalist standing up for Western Civ.
Well, your brand of nationalism is closer to Kipling's Imperialist Conservatism or modern Torism then it is too any nationalism of the American tradition.
"When did Wilhelm or his ancestors face a foreign religion/ideology like this? We are not dealing with a competing nation-state. We are dealing with an ideological religious construct whihc wishes to conquer us."
Might be a good time to study the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by a Muslim radical (amongst other Serbian nationalists.)
This is your fundamental problem. Nationalism is a very different idea than Islamism. The Serbs wanted to free all of Serbia and control part of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. They did not wish to conquer all of Europe and forceable make everyone Serbian Orthodox.
"I am not a neo-con. I am a nationalist standing up for Western Civ."
Well, your brand of nationalism is closer to Kipling's Imperialist Conservatism or modern Torism then it is too any nationalism of the American tradition.
When was the Golden age of American pacifism and Isolation? From our birth in war, we have expanded by force, conquering 1/2 of a continent. We started claiming colonies in the early 19th century and we were practicing gunboat diplomacy from the 1790's.
Paleo-con isolationists are defending a history that exists only in their mind.
Isolationism is a liberal slander that ignores the rich tradition of the Monroe Doctrine and no foreign entangling alliances. Pacifism has no real home on the Right since most American Conservatives support self-defense and are particularly absolutist when it comes to the Second Amendment.
You have no understanding of the Monroe Doctrine.
1. It allowed the US to expand accross this continent. We did so by purchase and conquest.
2. The document implied that the US had sole custody over teh Western Hemisphere. It was an imperialist claim.
3. The guaranteeor of the Monroe Doctrine, was the British Empire, which benefited from keeping France and Spain out of the area. US interest sheilded British imperialism here.
Fight 'wars to end wars,' 'end terrorism,' or 'make the world safe for democracy,' is a twentieth century phenomanon based on, as the author notes, a dumb downed populace.
All true. However, or enemy is not a mode of conflict, but Islamists.
Albright comes from the same line of thinking as Wolfowitz: what is the point of an army if you don't use it. Their cavalier attitude differs only where we deploy the troops first. Neither care either way about the defining issues of American Conservatism (lower taxes, gun rights, anti-abortion) and yet the Wolfowitz/Albright crowd is allowed to set the limits of debate on Iraq. Albright is not an anti-war leftist, she is merely saying we should go slower, hardly even a tinge of ideological difference; strictly supperficial political difference. You calim to be a nationalist and yet keep running with this abstract Western Civilization theme so you lost me, and I suspect you are a party of one. The Monroe Doctrine was the belief that we are in charge in our hemisphere; that is the litmus test I use on whether I support a military adventure or not. Your last line leads me to conclude that you did not read the article or did not understand it. You are in full agreement with the author (an ally); you just differ on policy prescriptions. Your hostility lies most likely in a lack of confidence in your own beliefs. The author suggests, before we go trancing around the world, that we stop letting Islamists into the country who are not only coming in legally but are being flown in with US assistance.
You calim to be a nationalist and yet keep running with this abstract Western Civilization theme so you lost me, and I suspect you are a party of one.
Actually the editors of National Review and Frontpage Magazine agree with me.
The Monroe Doctrine was the belief that we are in charge in our hemisphere; that is the litmus test I use on whether I support a military adventure or not.
1. We have historically acted outside of our hemisphere from 1793 onwards. We also did nothing about most European colonies in the Hemisphere until the Spanish American war. Of course, most Paleo-cons detest that conflict.
2. So You think that we should get rid of the Communist/Narco-terrosit conspiracy taking over South America? If so, I agree with you. I simply think that we should kill the Islamists first.
Your last line leads me to conclude that you did not read the article or did not understand it. You are in full agreement with the author (an ally); you just differ on policy prescriptions. Your hostility lies most likely in a lack of confidence in your own beliefs. The author suggests, before we go trancing around the world, that we stop letting Islamists into the country who are not only coming in legally but are being flown in with US assistance.
I never said the author was completely wrong. I just have a different belief in what our national interests are. I am an anti-UN, anti-NWO, internationalist. Think Hamilton to your Jefferson. (actually, that's not fair. Jefferson wanted teh US to get involved in plenty of conflicts.)
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.