Posted on 09/30/2001 9:31:07 AM PDT by annalex
Probably a lot like trying to reason with the Militant Religious Right on the drug war right here at home....
Good read. Only problem is "The United States Territory of Afghanistan" would be a bigger drain on us than Porto Rico!
I would say that they are inconsistent Moslems, which is a better thing to have than more militant Islam. But even then but I'm not sure I want more lapsed Moslems, because even lapsed Moslems can use democratic means to advance Islam, and I can't seem to get over my loathing of the notion of submitting to religious and dietary laws of seventh century Arabia, or paying extra tax for refusing to be so subjected. As a thought experiment, though, what do you think would happen if Moslems gained a majority power in the United States?
Christ obviously can use means He sees fit to accomplish His purposes, and I would hope that more Moslems will turn to Him. In some Islamic countries they face a death penalty for converting, and in other places moderate Moslems will still reject and ostracize members of their own families who do reject Islam.
You are right that in some ways the values of two different civilizations are in fundamental conflict. I think we as Christians need to remember that on a higher level, it's not just about military, cultural or ideological battles; we need to be aware that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Again, I appreciate your very fine and thoughtful article.
Cordially,
Yes, and our mistake was becoming involved in the first place. We should learn from that mistake and not make it again by trying to invade and conquer a country and install a puppet government of our choosing. That is what the USSR tried to do and is precisely what you now advocate for this country.
That would be my preference under most circumstances, but not under these concrete ones. I don't see what "decapitation" alone would do to gain support of moderate Muslims, and to prevent future networks developing. Nor would it be immoral to pick one side in the existing tension between moderate Islam and militant Islam: picking sides is the essense of foreign policy.
I am all for waiting till the Afghani pick a leader that would be compatible with our interests; while we wait, we have to mantain an occupational force there.
In your posts you offer the choice between the Diem model and Allende model, and, naturally, prefer (as I do) the Allende model, -- that is, stage a coup d'etat, eliminate the hostile leadership, and let the local populace work out a transition to a free market democracy. However, there is nothing to say that in Chile we didn't plain get lucky with Pinochet. The "Allende model" may not be available in the case of the Arab militants, if only because they can move from country to country: they are small and mobile, and don't have to feed the population like communist central planners do. Can we get an Arab Pinochet in every potentially hostile Arab country in a synchronized fashion?
Our model should be General MacArthur model: an occupational force that stays away from cultural issues but sets up civil courts and a police force, ready to turn the leadership over to an indigenous leader as soon as he becomes available.
The present leaders are either incapable to root out the terrorists or are sympathetic to them. In either case, we need to be present there to replace those leaders who are unreliable, or to assist those who merely need the means to govern. That means the same thing I have proposed: occupational force and a puppet government.
My only comment is that what the British have with the IRA is, indeed, terrorism that should not be dignified with the term "war". The militant Arabs are not common criminals: they represent a consistent worldview with its own notion of right and wrong, and they view us as evil. If the British had a system of justice that put the IRA thugs behind bars for life and didn't negotiate with them, their problem would be soon over. Not so in our case. Ours is war, not a police action.
There is no alternative to learning now.
We don't have to make it a drain, if we make it a minimalist government, that only does basic law enforcement. Come to think of it, it is a good thing that we can't afford to make it big for them.
If that were only true.
As a matter of fact, the Ottoman Empire had a pretty good, by contemporary standards, record of religious tolerance. All the Istambul wanted was taxes and civil order. The minorities had to demonstrate that they have an ability to maintain order and they were allowed worship in the manner they chose. Greater intolerance was at times exhibited by the local Christians. When Bulgarians wanted a national Orthodox church, the Pasha asked them to settle their dispute with the Greeks, who were an established Christian church, -- he was amused by such Christian disunity and alarmed that the existing order be disrupted by ethnic tension. "Why can't you pray in Greek if you pray to the same God?"
With what? Iraq? That's a good one. We need not care about a vicious dictator with weapons of mass destruction. I forgot we live in Libertopia were no one messes with you unprovoked. YEAH RIGHT?
Or do you mean Israel. That is less of an issue to Bin Laden than the Iraq one. But still Israel is the lone democracy over there, and we cannot sit by and allow it to fall. And if we were not supporting Israel Saddam, and other Muslim countries would go and take Jerusalem.
When it comes to governments which support terrorism, "decapitate and wait."
For countries which harbor terrorists, but we cannot be sure they do so knowingly, demand cooperative investigations. If the cooperation we insist upon is refused, we decapitate and wait. If the cooperation is offered, the investigations will, in time, provide the answers, and also in time, take a major step toward corraling the terrorists operating there.
The subject is Afghanistan, I know it's tough to keep up while you are in an anti-libertarian frenzy but none the less you must try son.
You were advocating the invasion and takeover of a foreign country and installing a puppet regime there, ala the USSR. Why not advocate a world takeover?
Don't change the topic please.
The present leaders are either incapable to root out the terrorists or are sympathetic to them.
-- Exactly my point. - They either abdicate, become 'capable', or we kill them. No more tolerence of terrorism.
In either case, we need to be present there to replace those leaders who are unreliable, or to assist those who merely need the means to govern. That means the same thing I have proposed: occupational force and a puppet government.
-- Only works with a completly beaten, capitalistic type enemy, as per WWII. You are ignoring the lessons of history, and your own observations on the enemy in your article above.
Also, we shouldn't CARE who the leaders are, as long as they control terrorism & warfare. - If they can't, kill them.
-- The wannabe strongmen/dictator/warmonger types would soon scuttle for cover if such a policy was adopted by us, and/or 'western civilisation'.
The government collects 50% of our money and has the best and biggest military in the world. If we don't have the resource to have an MP presence in every town, we better find one. I suggest, our government stops wasting its resources on (a) countries that don't attack us, such as Haiti or the Balkans (b) projects that are not its core function, such as education, medical care and business regulation, and concentrates of that which is a matter of national defense.
intended trap
That would be carpet-bombing from Algiers to Karachi and getting out as rapidly as possible, waiting for the level of sympathy for the friendly Yanks to rise. Getting our hands dirty on the ground was not expected by bin Laden after his dust-up with the glorious Clinton Administration, and that is precisely what needs to be done.
We had better constrain it to a police action
I agree, but what is your definition of a police action? Mine is a cop on the beat in the neighborhood, and that is what I am proposing here.
I think that those who disagree with the necessity of American imperialism do so because they are rightly appalled by the prospect, and because everyone has been conditioned to think that imperialism is wrong, unworkable, etc. The fact is that imperialism has worked every time it was properly tried; every time an imperial nation retreated from its obligations overseas it did so because it wanted to, not because it had to, in a bout of imperial laziness, and every time it retreated, it bought itself more trouble and closer to home.
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.