| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| A Questionable Assumption |
| 2006-09-02 |
| There is an assumption about the war on Expansionist Totalitarian Islam that is shared by both the left and the right and is worth questioning. In theory, the assumption leads to diametrically opposed policy prescriptions from the two poles but, in reality, if my thesis is correct, the short-term policy prescriptions will prove to make very little difference to the longer term outcome. The Questionable Assumption: The Left believes that if we essentially give in to the Islamists, by allowing them to establish rules for censoring the free press, agreeing to separate and more than equal laws covering Muslims within the West (Sharia law), abandoning Israel (eventually along with Kashmir and Spain), allowing Iran to pursue and acquire nuclear weapons, etc, that the Islamists will be satiated and will be willing to consolidate their victories and make peace with the West. The Right, in the form of the Neocons, believes that by confronting the Islamists now and defeating them in Iraq and Lebanon, especially, while treating them as a law enforcement problem elsewhere (England, Continental Europe, America) we will inflict enough damage on them to discourage the young from becoming radicalized and swelling the ranks of the Islamist battalions. This rests on the assumption that we can effect changes in the behavior of the Islamists without having to confront them in a world wide war, despite the fact that they see themselves engaged in a world wide struggle with us.I believe that, in practice, the assumption that we can meaningfully effect the course of Islamic totalitarianism short of full scale war is unwarranted, and whether our policy is controlled by the left or the right, any actions short of full scale war will only delay the final confrontation. I also do not see any way to square the circle. The Islamists are at war with us. It remains quite possible that we will eventually win for Iraq a stable, representative democracy of a type never seen before in the Arab world. Unfortunately, even the most optimistic would admit that such a victory is far in the future. In this war, victory delayed is victory denied. I sincerely doubt the West can win this war without societal mobilization and such mobilization can only take place once people begin to sense that they have a personal investment in the outcome. Tragically, before this war ends, we are all likely to find that we have a personal stake in the outcome. |
| Posted by:SR-71 |
| #2 Iraq would have been MUCH better if the left would have relaxed and saw what we were trying to do. The exasperated the problem, some wantonly and some not. What people need to realize is this. These Oil fed societies must learn to act as if there is no Oil at all wich means a fully functioning society at all levels. They must and will change, adapt, just like all creatures or become extinct. To do this with just one country alone with Iraq is a noble gesture. I will be honest. Muslims are scared of the west. They have not gained the conceptual intregrity to handle such a complex cultural structure. If given the chance they succeeded with a hand from the US, it would have helped us all. Unfortunately the left does not see how badly their pressure has unravelled a process so necessary that everyones lives are now placed in deeper jeopardy. I can say this for certain, George Soros is no Jew. He is of the Synagogue of Satan and anything connected with that are my enemy. |
| Posted by: newc 2006-09-02 23:06 |
| #1 This article adequately condemns the left's suicidal desire for appeasement and the right's idiotically PC approach to this conflict. It also accurately predicts the full-scale war that will be required to exterminate the Islamic threat. Thank you, SR-71. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-02 18:06 |