Theory One is a canard at worst, a distorted view at best. Thoughtful people realize that bombing them all is not the right way to go about this. It would cause more problems than it would solve. The people in charge - the people Buchanan hates because they are where he wants to be - know this.
Theory Two espoused here by Pat Buchanan and elsewhere by libertarians and paleos is that Islamic Fundamentalism's hatred for the U.S. is linked to American intervention in Islamic homelands. Specific incidents of military aggression by the U.S. against Islamic peoples and by a decidedly pro-Israel tilt in our foreign policy are the cause and the goal is to get the U.S. out of Islamic territory.
Has the US been aggressive against all Islamic peoples? How would Kuwait answer this question? What about our support of the mujahadeen? We haven't exactly bombed the hell out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, have we? Haven't we also been accused of arming some of those same Islamic countries?
My point is not to defend all of US foreign policy in the region. It is to show that our policies have not been focused on "aggression" against "Islamic peoples"....
....unless you include US support of Israel, and assume that support of Israel equals an attack on Islam. What a nice sentiment for Buchanan to align himself with. I'm not surprised, unfortunately.
To address the rest of your post, traderkirk, the goal should not be to kill every person who is anti-American, which is your deduction from your flawed Theory One. People, all over the world, should be able to think what they want to think. That is part of our freedom here - unfortunately beginning to be limited via political correctness and hate crimes laws - and it is something that billions of people have not really had the luxury to do.
Acting on those thoughts, however, especially violently, is another matter. If anti-American people of any religion want to take up arms, become suicide bombers, etc., then we will have to deal with them, no matter how many of them there are. But doing so will be their choice, not ours. And do you think they would stop if we were to pull out of Israel today? I don't.
And as far as the implications of Theory Two goes, you just might as well have put it in these terms: radical Islam dictates to America - stop support of Israel, and everything will be fine.
So how come Buchanan supports being dictated to by some foreign countries and peoples (radical Islam), but not others (Israel)?
First, many thanks for your thoughtful defense of your position. In the past week, I have not seen a rational defense of your point of view at all on this site. Hence your qualification regarding thoughtful people.
My main point is to discuss the question of Why since this is the key question in the formulation of an end strategy for this "war".
Ending the ability of a soverign nation to excercise political control over territory is pretty straigtforward war aim but how do you know when this war will be over? If "hatred of America all it stands for" is the standard will we be fighting until everyone either loves us or is dead? I know that this is reduciao ad absurdum but it illustrates the slippery slope we'd be on without a clear idea of why. Many people on this site and in the media ARE calling for a clash of civilations on a global scale. For personal reasons, I'd like to avoid having a third of the world fighting a battle to the death with another third.
Has the US been aggressive against all Islamic peoples? How would Kuwait answer this question? What about our support of the mujahadeen? We haven't exactly bombed the hell out of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, have we? Haven't we also been accused of arming some of those same Islamic countries?
If push came to shove where would the Saudi's go? Or the Kuwaiti's? In a battle royal with the white devil I think we know where the next folding chair to the back of the head would be coming from.
My point is not to defend all of US foreign policy in the region. It is to show that our policies have not been focused on "aggression" against "Islamic peoples".... ....unless you include US support of Israel, and assume that support of Israel equals an attack on Islam. What a nice sentiment for Buchanan to align himself with. I'm not surprised, unfortunately.
While you and I may see support for Israel as a policy which the US pursues for a variety of reasons all good, I'm sure that a healthy minority of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular see it as support for a bully. So, that support has a price and the US must either pay the price or cut bait. That's a choice for our leaders and our polity to make.
To address the rest of your post, traderkirk, the goal should not be to kill every person who is anti-American, which is your deduction from your flawed Theory One. People, all over the world, should be able to think what they want to think. That is part of our freedom here - unfortunately beginning to be limited via political correctness and hate crimes laws - and it is something that billions of people have not really had the luxury to do.
Acting on those thoughts, however, especially violently, is another matter. If anti-American people of any religion want to take up arms, become suicide bombers, etc., then we will have to deal with them, no matter how many of them there are. But doing so will be their choice, not ours. And do you think they would stop if we were to pull out of Israel today? I don't.
But where does the killing end if our war aim is destruction of anti-american thought? I picture the scene in Good Morning Vietnam where Robin Williams is pretending to be an intelligence officer who says that's it very difficult to find a Vietnamse man named Charlie. So, how do you find the enemy? Well, we ask them Are you the enemy and if they say Yes we shoot them.
And as far as the implications of Theory Two goes, you just might as well have put it in these terms: radical Islam dictates to America - stop support of Israel, and everything will be fine.
So how come Buchanan supports being dictated to by some foreign countries and peoples (radical Islam), but not others (Israel)?
The point of asking why is to determine how to end the conflict. If we as a nation accept our interventionist foreign policy, then we also must accept heightened security, terror as a weapon and greater government control. That's not such an easy choice.