| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Has the economic burden of restraint against Islamicism become an existential threat to the US? | |
| 2011-10-18 | |
(1) Intentional mass killing of noncombatants is morally wrong, but may be the least wrong course of action available to us. Specifically, it may be the least wrong action when our survival - rather than our convenience or risk - is truly at stake. (2) Our goal in this fight should be to defend not only our physical survival but, as much as possible, our liberties and our unique Constitutionally-based way of life. This requires that we carefully think about and articulate the principles we are defending and establish clear guidelines for action on our part in response to actions on the part of others. Rantburg regular Thing from Snowy Mountain now has raised a third dimension to the discussion. So my question to you all is this: Has the financial burden of attempting to fight restrained military actions against terror / Islamicist groups now become an existential threat to us? How can we measure that? Would your answer change if instead of current actions against terror / Islamicist groups we were involved in similar actions against narco terror groups? In skirmishes with China? In other words, can we lay out a principle and guidelines that establish the degree of economic impact that is sufficiently a threat to justify intentional attacks on non-combatants in Afghanistan or elsewhere? g(r)omgoru suggests the Golden Rule, i.e. proportional response. Can that work for us fighting abroad, vs. Israel in Gaza? *Is* it working for Israel now? Or should we just come home? Would doing so make us any safer? ADDED: Or are we actually achieving many of our goals in the WOT? Will the current food shortages, the immense economic and social impact of the Arab Spring on those countrys's own citizens, the political turmoil in Pakistan and the potential economic correction to China's economy solve some of this for us? What do you think? | |
| Posted by: |
| #16 Nukes be much cheaper. |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2011-10-18 22:55 |
| #15 Or we can destroy the principle. Which would cost less in the long run? For one thing, if we destroy the principle We take over over the principle assets of the region (guess what that is) and then continue fight using some of the $750 billion/year in windfall profits. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-10-18 21:57 |
| #14 One thing that can help develop and focus psychological will is to have a clear picture regarding where our boundaries are and what actions we will take if they are crossed. People can live with a lot of uncertainty if they have clarity about where the bright lines are, and what they believe is justified response. That's why I've been suggesting we who hold convictions on the right and the right/libertarian side of things really need to talk through the questions we've been exploring here: * in what situations are we justified in using overwhelming force against villages, countries, a whole people? under what conditions can we move out with such actions without reservations? * what are the actions that sufficiently undermine our Constitution to the extent that they justify limiting a freedom we hold dear? How can we protect ourselves against the corrosion of soft jihad without undermining the best parts of who we are? If we can answer these kinds of questions to our own satisfaction, with some degree of consensus, that fact alone can generate will, endurance and - when the time calls for it - effective, focused action on our part. And - equally important - we can provide leadership to others who are losing will or who have moral uncertainties about how to defend ourselves against an enemy who wears no uniform. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-18 21:26 |
| #13 TFSM, I'd buy that to a great extent. We have the economic muscle to fight the WoT but we don't have the psychological will to sustain it for all that long. That shows up as 'war-weariness' in elections, as you point out. If we had elected the grumpy old man as our president our economy might be tottering along a little better, and we'd have $600 instead of $1600 billion deficits. Perhaps that would let us sustain a little better the economic burden in the fight against Islamicism. But the political fight would likely be just as nasty. It always comes down to will. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-10-18 20:50 |
| #12 Addressing the broader issue, I suspect the "war on terror," or more accurately the terrorist war against the US, is merely one component of a multi-faceted economic war against the US, and a rather effective way of bleeding the US economy. In addition, the war was a contributing factor in the 2008 election, where war-weariness helped propel an economically and industrially destructive administration to power in the US. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-10-18 19:41 |
| #11 We can keep fighting what amounts to the interest on Islamofascism's principle; half-wit splodeydopes, murder squads aka Beslan,and scuffles like in Iraq or Astan. This is how Israel operates and why it's never going to end. Or we can destroy the principle. Which would cost less in the long run? For one thing, if we destroy the principle, there will be no long run against which to compare it and our actions will forever be considered equivalent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Umm. I can live with that. |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2011-10-18 19:39 |
| #10 It's manageable/affordable if kept under a certain level. I've long argued that assasination is the only effective way to deal with transnational terrorism and the drone has made that a cheap and effective response. Well, I have time for this: We pay Pakistan exorbitantly for the privilege of killing, with ruinously expensive ammunition, the people they apparently consider to be expendable. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-10-18 19:38 |
| #9 Terrorism is a scale problem. It's manageable/affordable if kept under a certain level. I've long argued that assasination is the only effective way to deal with transnational terrorism and the drone has made that a cheap and effective response. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2011-10-18 19:30 |
| #8 I appreciate y'all's discussions on this new thread, but I'm suddenly dealing with family issues again and don't have time to participate. Have a nice day. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-10-18 19:13 |
| #7 Anonymoose, I'm assuming you would also undertake some sort of energy independence before cutting off trade with the muslim oil producers - or having them do so based on expulsion/restriction of muslims. What, if anything, would you anticipate as a rise in radicalism among native-born or naturalized muslims as a result of that policy? |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-18 17:11 |
| #6 Like all great empires, our only real existential threat is internal. Keeping the barbarians at the gate is no problem while we are confident, industrious and wealthy. But these things don't last forever, especially in a country where an inglorious clown like Bammo can be elected president. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2011-10-18 17:04 |
| #5 Practically speaking, North America and Europe could inexpensively restrain Islamicism in two ways. 1) Prohibit Muslim immigration entirely, and deport those Muslims who are not naturalized citizens. Visitation only under very strict rules, with severe criminal penalties for overstaying visas. Commerce with Muslim countries only via corporations that act as international neutral third parties and certify all cargo in either direction. And an end to any form of financial aid to any Muslim nation. 2) Create a policy of Assured Destruction, based on the aggressive use of nuclear capable missiles or nuclear weapons against an ally of the US or Europe. It does not matter if the missile is successful, or if it had a nuclear weapon in it. On launch and detected aggressive trajectory, or use, the US may use neutron weapons to annihilate all life in the aggressor nation, and give that nation to the victim nation as reparations. If done in a covert manner, this may be done against the most likely candidate nation, so denials are useless. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-10-18 16:20 |
| #4 Entitlements and employee retirements represent an existential financial threat to the US, not the GWOT. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-10-18 16:08 |
| #3 I added a final paragraph above for your comment. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-10-18 15:05 |
| #2 The USA is its own existential financial threat, due to the dominance of its governmental operations by the Free Lunch Party - which includes many GOP and Dems, and partly due to outsourcing of key US production capacity in pursuit of globalization. Another key element is the US's dependence on oil purchased from countries which hate it. Virtually nothing has been done to lessen this dependence. The WOT would look entirely different without this dependence. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-10-18 14:55 |
| #1 There is no existential financial threat. We have a $12 trillion plus GDP. We're throwing away gobbets of money on stupid stuff (I'm being polite). The WoT for places like Somalia, Uganda, etc is a pittance, and if it allows us to further our goals, knock down terrorists and terrorist organizations, and (at the very least) keep our SF sharp, no problem, we can afford that for the next hundred years. We could afford another Iraq if we needed to, though it would be better if we didn't have to. We can't afford the Obama-Occupy-socialist welfare state, but that's a different argument. But the WoT? We can do that all day. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-10-18 14:38 |