Posted on 08/11/2003 1:28:14 PM PDT by dennisw
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:15:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
August 11, 2003 -- OUR immediate missions in the War Against Terror aren't enough to win a decisive victory. Yes, those missions - preventing as many attacks as we can, killing or capturing terrorists, destroying terrorist organizations - are essential goals, but they focus on surface tumors while ignoring the cancer beneath.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This it!! Anything less and the "war on terror" will be a failure.
The Road Map is a sick example of mealy measures. The Pallies need to be crushed into accepting an independent state and the Saudi's, Syrians and Iranian govt's need to go.
Future historians will regard our groveling at the feet of Saudi bigots and whoremongers as the equivalent of down-market strippers dancing for drunkards' tips.
Why isn't there a serious bipartisan outcry to expose Saudi misdeeds? Why do we get nothing but pro forma, made-for-the-microphone complaints from both sides of the aisle? Because both political parties are horrified at the thought of the Saudis revealing what they know about us,
Portrait of a corrupted elite. Peters scores again!
The arab, along with leftists of all stripes, admire and worship power. Thus, they have more respect and goodwill towards those who are powerful enough to rob them than those who would free them.
Why can't people recognize that?!
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to these questions. If one of our major cities goes up in smoke, that's when politicians will have the courage to confront the Saudis.
I frequent, among others, a weblog called Capitalist Lion, which has a picture of a handgun on it, hammer cocked, captioned thus:
By this reading, the Muslim Middle East is largely peopled by predators. Even its downtrodden are largely incapable of understanding freedom or appreciating participative democracy. The mind susceptible to the lure of Islam makes little or no room for any of the higher sentiments -- the sort spread by the Enlightenment and the Jewish and Christian faiths. A democracy among such people is almost impossible to sustain. They automatically gravitate toward strongmen of the Saddam Hussein or Gamal Abdel Nasser variety.
Which, of course, casts a pall over our efforts to construct a free society in Iraq. Yes, we must try, and I'm sure we'll try our damnedest. But the psycho-social currents will fight us every step of the way. The outcome is not foreordained, as was the outcome of the war.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
War By Proxy: Why We Can't Fight Our Mortal Enemies
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/stix/20030316-fss.htm ^ | 16 March 2003 | Nicholas Stix
Posted on 03/14/2003 9:49 AM PST by mrustow
Toogood Reports [Weekender, March 16, 2003; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
The closer we get to extending the War on Terror to an Iraqi front, the more frequently I have been coming across strong anti-war arguments. Not surprisingly, the arguments have largely been from conservatives of the group referred to in some circles as paleo-conservatives, with some coming from libertarians. (I say, "some circles," because in most circles they are ignored.) The articles that since 911 have essentially said, "Praise the Proposition Nation, and pass the ammunition," have all come from folks who are known as "neo-conservatives." At least since 911, the neocons have been spoiling for a fight against ... well, the world, and certainly the Islamic world.
(Paleocons, who are politically marginalized, are localists who believe in states' rights vs. Leviathan; are highly critical of the notion of "civil rights"; seek to limit or put a moratorium on immigration, and deport illegals; champion an isolationist foreign policy; are no fans of Israel; and seek the preservation of a uniquely American identity and culture. Leading paleocon writers include Paul Craig Roberts, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, Paul Gottfried, Chilton Williamson and Thomas Fleming.
Conversely, neocons are politically connected globalists, who think that Leviathan is great, if it can be made to serve "our side"; they support "civil rights"; are pro-immigration; champion a radically interventionist foreign policy; love Israel; and think that being an American comes down to supporting certain philosophical propositions, regardless of whether one was born and raised in Tennessee or Timbuktu. Among the most influential neocons are writers Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Heather MacDonald and Victor Davis Hanson, and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and defense advisor Richard Perle.)
The most humorous argument I've seen against attacking Iraq, came from Glenn Jackson, the founder of the American Reformation Project. Jackson cited conditions that would support our attacking Iraq:
Jackson is of course talking about the Saudis, who attacked us on 911, who bankroll al Qaeda and terrorist mosques across America, whose agents have been recruiting convicts in American prisons to be terrorists, seeking to infiltrate the U.S. military as chaplains, whose officials have obstructed the pursuit of terrorists on Saudi AND American soil, and who are the proper targets of a war. Jackson argues that our government leaders are too "compromised" to do the right thing.
I'm not so sure about that last point. Granted, I have read of corrupt State Department officials who, while working in Saudi Arabia, have refused to protect American citizens and American interests, because they knew that betraying their country would issue in cushy, Saudi-financed jobs. But I don't think that's the real reason we are going to attack the "wrong" country.
On 911, the Sword of Islam pierced America, murdering almost 3,000 people. It is not a matter of choice whether America goes to war against Islam; on 911, Islam declared war on America.
Leading neocons (and Evangelical Gary Bauer) reacted to 911, unfortunately, by signing an open letter, calling on President Bush to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely Iran and Syria down the road. (And Jews are supposed to be so smart!) It's one thing for an individual columnist to call on America to invade Islamic countries, and force them to convert to Christianity, as Ann Coulter did, and quite another for an influential group of 41 people, including some with close ties to the White House (e.g., Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney) to do so. The only good thing to come out of such foolishness, was that President Bush was able to present himself as the "good cop" by not only ignoring the letter, but by publicly praying with Moslem terrorists. (And Bush is supposed to be so dumb!)
The neocons' newest talking points philosophy, from that sage of situation ethics, William Kristol, has us pursuing an "idealpolitik," in the phrase used by blogger Josh Chafetz, a morality-based foreign policy, of "liberating" the Iraqi people and spreading the gospel of democracy to the Middle East. But the legitimate basis for a war on Iraq is not America's desire to bully the world and spread her empire, with or without the neocons' phony, sanctimonious moralism. It is America's survival.
We will not be establishing a democracy in Iraq, or any other Arab nation — as opposed to say, a military protectorate — or "liberating" the Iraqi or any other Arab people, because, as Zev Chafets has pointed out repeatedly, Arabs hate freedom and democracy down to their bones, and will not abide it. "No Arab society anywhere has ever manifested the slightest desire for freedom as we understand it.
"Arab students demonstrate for more state and religious repression, not less. Arab crowds march for war, not peace. Arab leaders like Jordan's first King Abdullah and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat are assassinated because they are considered too liberal, not too harsh."
"The Iraqis have their own reasons for wanting to do away with Saddam. His family, tribe, sect and faction have ruled them ruthlessly and stolen them blind. Now they would like the chance to murder Saddam's family, tribe and faction - and enrich themselves. This is the pattern of what is known as modern Arab political reform. There is no other."
American foreign policy must protect America's vital interests. That is a dangerous enough business, without indulging in fantasies of bettering the world.
We won't be attacking our mortal enemy, which is responsible for 911, because Saudi Arabia is the capital of what my colleague, Alan Caruba, calls Islam, bloody Islam, and attacking it now would unify one billion Moslems against us. But if other measures fail, if toppling Saddam fails to put the fear of Allah into the Saudis, we may yet have to do just that. But for now, we will fight a proxy war, with Saddam standing in for the house of Saud.
Note that, apparently unbeknownst to the socialist, mainstream media, and the paleo, alternative media alike, the proxy war actually began 12 years ago, and has continued ever since, against a dictator who, if we do not end things now, will soon be trading in Samoud missiles for nuclear missiles.
Next column: Our Enemy is in the Sand.
The desert is a demanding environment where the strong and the predators rule. The Koran and Muhammad's life reflect this harsh rule by the nomadic warrior. Water is scarce and dictators who ape Muhammed run the irrigation projects. VS Naipaul says Arab Muslims like to run a mind game by other Muslims where the only true Muslim is the Arab Muslim.
It did, we didn't, we won, and now we are in the process of a reallignment to fight the war on terror.
It is really stupid of Peters to claim that we backed to Saudis only for money.
People who say "to hell with the Saudis" (i.e. the House of Abdul Aziz Al Saud, not the Arabs who live in the Kingdom) better realize that what's waiting in the wings is not a pluralistic, Western democracy, but a Khomeini-style Islamic theocracy, armed with a full suite of the most modern weapons sold by (amongst others) the good old USA.
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.