|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 10/10/2003 10:46:36 AM PDT by quidnunc
"The war is against 'terror'." As a number of astute observers have reminded us, terror is a method , not an enemy. And we are no more in a war against it than we were once fighting the scourge of Zeros or the plague of Soviet MiGs.
Such vague, loose nomenclature is reassuring, of course, in our therapeutic society. It ensures that we are not really angry at any one person or nation, but rather at an abstraction — as if somewhere there were soldiers with caps embroidered, "Republic of Terror," or crowds chanting "Up with Terror, Down with the USA," or perhaps thuggish leaders in sunglasses and khaki who beat their shoes at the U.N. and warn, "Terrorism will bury you."
In fact, those who employ terror of the type that culminated (rather than began) on September 11 are real people with real government backing. They cannot operate without money, havens, and at least passive complicity. Who are they? Aside from the deposed Taliban, al Qaeda, of course; but also Hezbollah and its sponsors in Iran — as well as Islamofascist groups funded and abetted by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. After 9/11, any autocratic country in the Middle East that had recently gone to war with the United States and cumulatively required 350,000 American air sorties, twelve years, $20 billion of policing, and occupation of two-thirds of its airspace to prevent genocide was an enemy, both de facto and — given Iraq's violation of the armistice accords of 1991 — de jure. That Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were in Baghdad before the war, and al Qaeda afterward, is the expected calculus of the Hussein regime and its noxious fumes.
While we may be in various stages of bellicosity with differing states, the fact is that after September 11 we will either accept defeat and stay within our borders to fight a defensive war of hosing down fires, bulldozing rubble, arresting terrorist cells, and hoping to appease or buy off our enemies abroad — or we will eventually have to confront Syria, Lebanon's Bekka Valley, Saudi Arabia, and Iran with a clear request to change and come over to civilization, or join the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.
Of course, a single dead American soldier is a tragedy, both for the nation and for the aggrieved family. But, by any historical measure, what strikes students of this war so far in its first two years is the amazing degree to which the United States has hurt its enemies without incurring enormous casualties and costs. So far there have been five theaters of conflict: Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Afghanistan, and Iraq. After suffering about 3,000 dead, $100 billion in direct material damage in Manhattan and D.C., and perhaps another $1 trillion hit to the economy at large in areas as diverse as airline losses, increased security expenditures, and tourist and travel drop-offs, the United States has lost under 400 soldiers in defeating the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and probably spent roughly $100 billion in direct military expenditures, with another $100 billion in slated reconstruction costs.
In terms of American military history, this is a staggering paradox. Usually the initial attacks that have prompted past American wars were relatively mild, while the subsequent reaction was costly — in the manner that Fort Sumter paled in comparison with Shiloh, or Tonkin was not Hue, or Pearl Harbor was nothing like Iwo Jima. But 9/11 itself was much more deadly than all of the subsequent campaigns that have followed in the last two years. Unlike other wars, our present offensives going into the third year of fighting have cost far fewer lives than the first 25 months of any major conflict in American history — the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, or World War II. But then, to see the logic of this anomaly, one must first accept the initial premise that we are currently in a war — and millions of Americans apparently do not.
Of course, we cringe in despair at Americans killed and billions of dollars in costs to rebuild Iraq. But what is truly strange about the opposition to military efforts since 9/11 is the absence of a serious alternative strategy. It is easy to quibble about going into Iraq or the problems of sniping, bombing, or power and water in Baghdad; but so far the opponents of the war have not advocated any of the measures that their spiritual forerunners in Vietnam found so successful in ending hostilities — from sit-ins, daily demonstrations, and teach-ins, to military resistance and the cut-off of funding.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Finally, rogue states like Iran and North Korea will soon emulate the strategy of Saddam Hussein — but learning the critical lesson of first finishing their bombs before invading neighbors or confronting the United States. Thus the irony of this phony debate is that, in the future, an exasperated United States, in an act of unilateral defense , will reluctantly shy away from the thankless task of policing such regimes, and instead press on with its own military preparedness and missile defense — allowing the more circumspect and purportedly sober EU and U.N. to pay blackmail or pass empty resolutions to deal with these new rogue nuclear states.
Frankly, I would not be completely heart-broken to see Paris nuked.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
I finally figured it out; you are actually making fun of the psuedocons by demonstrating how ridiculous they are.
Too funny, and best of luck with your good work.
Pfui!
Prior to the Iraq War those vile Frogs engaged in actions consciously calculated to increase American casualties.
During the early stages of WW II they caved in to the Germans partly in order to prevent damage to Paris.
The French are contemptible people.
I'm with you. I say we give up now before it's too late.
It's frustrating that Bush will not call it the war on Islamism, though there is evidence that this is exactly what he believes it is. And if he can undercut state sponsorship of radical Islam there may be opportunities for reform, which at least a few prominant Muslims around the world are willing to express.
But this war is not, "In fact, endless." For either we will prevail in it - which we must - or Islamism will.
I'm not advocating nuking the Frogs, but I am saying that if, after their attempts to thwart our War on terror, they get hit with WMD then I will not shed crocodile tears.
I believe the proper phrase is being hoist on your own petard.
I would hope that in the future, if France were in danger of being conquered by (let's just say) the Germans, the US should sit back and ask, "Will this make Germany strong? Will Germany threaten us?" Answers to these questions should decide our course of action.
Considerations about what would benefit the French people should not enter our thinking at all, IMO.
Some have put the percentage of Muslims in France as high as 20%.
Once the Muslims decide they are strong enough to begin subverting the French government then they will begin terror attacks on french soil.
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.