Reader Responses
I have learned a great deal reading the responses to these essays, and often try to predicate the next entry on the concerns of the readers.
So one reoccurring topic is the controversy over just how serious is the threat of radical Islam. I get a great deal of furious mail, suggesting that Bush & Co. for a variety of reasons (fill in the blanks: oil, Halliburton, etc.) have created a bogeyman out of a few ragtag terrorists, and dangerously and gratuitously set us on a path of war in the Middle East.
Such critics are emboldened by the luxuries of relative world peace. Remember, we enter into year six without an attack on the United States homeland comparable to September 11. That fact, taken together with the absence of a clearly-identified enemy nation state, has suggested to many that there is hardly a present threat comparable to dangers posed by Nazis, fascists, Japanese imperialists, or Soviet and Chinese communists of the past.
But how true is that really?
I. -Isms and –Ologies Are More Deadly
Global ideologies pose greater threats than particular bellicose states. Nazism, for example, was more dangerous than Prussian militarism because it much more easily appealed across national boundaries.
The same was true of communism versus, say, Japanese militarism that was predicated on unique thoughts about racial superiority rather than Pan-Asian communitarian solidarity. Bushido appealed to few non-Japanese.
Jihadism, however, resonates with Muslims in Pakistan, the Arab World, the Philippines, or Indonesia. Race, language, landscape, or nationality are not always predictable in our enemies, only a certain shared derangement guided by the idea that the West and its modernization have eclipsed Islam and are in some way responsible for radical Muslims’ current sense of inferiority and lost entitlement.
II. A Dirty Bomb Versus a Salvo or Air strike?
Second, the global wherewithal of any enemy is predicated as well on technology and conditions of the age. Just as the Kaiser was NOT the avatar of a global revolutionary ideology, he also lacked the technology to harm the continental United States. While it is true that al Qaedists don’t posses (yet) Soviet-style nuclear missiles; still, equipped with miniaturized weapons, stealthy terrorists can now hit almost anywhere. And there is no logical reason why in the next act of escalation, they will not evolve from planes and bombs to more deadly chemicals or germs—or a nuclear Iran or a Pakistan run by jihadists.
III. “We Didn’t Do It—They Did”
There is also a third force-multiplier that might explain why the pathetic cave-dwelling Dr. Zawahiri and his clowns could hurt the United States far more than Hitler or even the Soviets ever could. True, the absence, after the fall of the Taliban, of a state apparatus has hurt the terrorists, but their umbilical cords to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran offer them the nourishment of a parent state, but without national culpability. Thus it is hard for us to target patrons who by design deny culpability, and nullify classical deterrence between nation states.
That is, killer teams that poison the water supply of Los Angeles or blow themselves up in the Mall of America, defy an easy response. Do we hit the Saudis whose charities funded them? The Syrians who gave them the weapons? The Iranians who trained them? Or the Pakistanis who offered them space? All such governments would immediately “deplore” such attacks, offer their condolences, and claim they had no influence over their cheering crowds (in the manner Arafat gave blood after the West Bank street high-fived 9/11).
IV. The Fragility of the Good Life
Fourth, in our sophistication arises more of our vulnerability. Tojo or Mussolini could not ruin the world’s banking system. The globe is even more interconnected than during the Cold War. So a dirty bomb set off in the New York Stock Exchange—remember the panic set off by the Maryland/Virginia snipers—or anthrax spread in the Capitol would have ripple effects, psychological implications that we saw after 9/11 when there was a trillion dollar hit to the hotel, airline, and travel industries.
The more modern man evolves from his physical world, the more vulnerable he becomes. In a world where few know how to raise food, where cash is disappearing as the normal currency, where our debits and assets are mere numbers on a computer, we can become paralyzed by centrally-planned but rather narrowly-focused attacks on computer systems, government, and corporations that ripple out with life-or-death consequences.
V. Too Sophisticated
Fifth, this is a different America from 1941, 1946, 1950, or even 1973-4. A quarter-century of multiculturalism, utopian pacifism, and cultural relativism have convinced many that there are no real cultural differences in the world, much less Western or American exceptionalism. Resistance is outdated and a poor remedy for aggression that is not prompted by evil, but rather follows only from ignorance, poverty, and misunderstanding—much of it induced by a grasping and immoral Western civilization.
The Locus Classicus of Iran
When such thinking is confronted by the primordial world of the 7th century, then a sort of dangerous naiveté follows, perhaps best epitomized by our confusion over Iran.
A jihadist of the first order swears that he hears religious voices and through his mesmerizing speech prevents his audiences from blinking. He promises a world without the United States and swears he will wipe Israel off the map. As relish he brags about shutting down the Straits of Hormuz and choking off global petroleum commerce. And these are not impossible threats, since Ahmadinejad has at his disposal billions in petrol-dollars, soulless commercial partners in Russia, North Korea, and China who will sell him anything, and a certain apocalyptic vision that, Jim-Jones like, convinces him that he can achieve eternal fame in this world—the downtrodden Shiite Persians at last trump the Sunni Arabs as the true warriors of Islam—and Paradise in the next.
And all this is reified by an ongoing nuclear program. Set against all that, our own wise men and women demonize those who will not “talk” with the Iranian theocracy, so convinced are they either of their own moral superiority and beguiling rhetoric, or of the rational sense of the Iranians. In other words, suggest modestly that Iran is creepy enough to keep distant from—and suddenly that wariness is slurred as a neocon plot to wage war with Teheran.
So, yes, I have no apologies for labeling radical Islam as a danger comparable to Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Mao.That admission does not make any of us who share these worries fond of war, far from it. Rather we fear that radical Islam has much in store for us ahead, and the more America prepares for it, the less our citizens and others less strong will suffer.
So What Do We Do?
By the same token only a comprehensive strategy that addresses the ideological basis of radical Islam will ultimately work. Regional solutions—talking with Syria about Lebanon, pressuring Israel to give back more of the West Bank, continuing the now $50 billion subsidy for Egypt, etc.—are palliative without offering hopes of an eventual solution.
Our Current Approach
Instead only a four-pronged fundamental approach, much of which we are presently engaged in, will ultimately work: kill jihadists whether in Somalia or Anbar or the Hindu Kush; promote consensual government and market economies that so drive the jihadists crazy and offer a chance that some day the Middle East will achieve parity with other regions—and thus cease blaming the West for its self-induced failures; work with regional governments, whether the newly established Afghans or Iraqis, or the Ethiopians or the Jordanians or the Israelis to fight the jihadists; and collapse the world oil market though conservation, more exploration, alternative fuels, and nuclear power. 20 -dollar-a-barrel oil will take immediately nearly $500 billion a year out of the coffers of Middle East exporters—and with that loss, floating petrodollars for weapons and terrorists.
The Surge
I wrote at National Review Online about the surge, and did some radio interviews about the controversy over it. I have been skeptical about the ‘more troops’ arguments, since the real problem centered on the rules of engagement, especially the arrest/release of terrorists, the open borders with Syria and Iran, the pass given the militias, and the ambiguity of a sort of, not sort of autonomous Iraqi government. But now, the President has decided on the increase as part of a reassessment of tactics.
A brilliant general is confident of its efficacy. Troop morale is still high. And the arguments against it from the Democrats (why would they select Sen. Durban as the public responder, he of “Nazi” and “Pol Pot” slander infamy?) offer neither improvement nor honesty in confessing their desire to leave and call it quits. So as a Jacksonian, I will support the surge in confidence it will work, and hope my reservations about pouring more troops without a change of tactics have been answered by the President’s promises that there is indeed a new way of operations accompanying the addition of 20,000 more soldiers.
What was the old strategy?
In the typical American fashion of ‘out with the old, in with the new’ or ‘the King is Dead, Long Live the King’ suddenly the once praised Gens. Abizaid and Casey are considered goats and their strategies failed. But is that fair? And what was their thinking? Namely, that in a global war against jihadism, American ground troops are stretched too thin at precisely the time there are more dangers arising in Syria, Iran, and the Horn of Africa. Thus, we wanted to stabilize Iraq with what we had, keep an ample reserve for future problems, and force the Iraqis to understand our troop presence was shrinking and only they could stabilize their own country. I think the Generals would have changed the parameters of their operations, and still have secured the country with what we had—in time. But after the 2006 elections, there was no longer any political window, and things have now come to a head where either we win quickly or the politics turn ugly circa 1974..
Grant Was Saved By Sherman
Something similar was occurring from Summer 1864 to Spring 1865 with Grant. We forget that his strategy of attrition was pilloried and most of his fervent admirers from 1863 had turned on him. Only Sherman’s capture of Atlanta saved Lincoln the ensuing election that was formerly said to have been lost due to Grant’s quagmire in Virginia. And while he wore down Lee’s forces, their collapse was more likely brought on by the realization that Sherman’s huge confident Army of the West was approaching at the Confederate rear from the Carolinas. So rightly or wrongly the era of static operations are over, and we are gong to have to go after our enemies, risk increased casualties, deal with a perfidious government that may at times side with the militias, and Sherman-like risk all to win.
The Bathos of Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter apparently did not realize that his Carter Center—both its funding and reputation—was predicated on a certain liberal thinking that, at its best, was supposed to be disinterested and appealed to the better angels of our nature. But his crass apartheid slurs, his intellectual dishonesty about the Middle East, and his almost inexplicable disdain for Israel, all that is eating away at his liberal base, as witnessed by the recent resignation of 14 members of his board of counselors. In short Jimmy was revealed at last not as Gandhi but more a Stanley Baldwin, nit-picking his way into infamy. His two worst prior feats? Sending Ramsey Clark to Teheran to beg for the hostages, and actively campaigning among Europeans for the Nobel Prize by undermining a sitting US President at a time of war.
What will follow will be either be the implosion of the Center, or, to survive, some sort of transparently Middle Eastern-funded, highly partisan, pro-Saudi think-tank that alone ensures further money. There is something tragic about all this. After a failed Presidency, Carter for a quarter-century religiously tried to reconstruct his legacy by his visible public works and missionary zeal, if punctuated by the occasional crass outburst. But now that once characteristic meanness has resurfaced in his dotage, and in a manner of weeks destroyed his decades of artful reconstruction.
In short, his post-presidency will now be considered as failed as his notorious administration. Note the role of the Greek god Nemesis. As the retired Gerald Ford, who liberals once snickered at as a Golf Course apolitical functionary, went off into the night with grace, his own dignified emeritus career only highlighted Carter’s foolery.
All this is very sad.
PS Tractoriana
Some readers wrote in asking about tractor preferences not long ago. I once wrote an essay about the topic ten years ago or so in The Land Was Everything. I grew up driving old ones, like Italian Olivers or a British-built 3-cylinder Ford 4000, and earlier a Ford Jubilee and tiny 8ns and even 9ns, and over the years some real lemons like an old clunking Allis-Chalmers. But in the early 1980s, we bought two Massey-Ferguson 265s, and they were the most dependable, best machines we ever owned, with Perkins engines and wonderful hydraulics. They didn’t burn diesel like the bigger 285s and yet had enough power to pull either a tandem 9-foot disc or a 500 gallon PTO sprayer, and rarely heated up even over 100 in July or August. With hydraulic cane-cutters chopping in front, and a big disk with coil in back, and only a few inches of vine clearance on either side, they nevertheless pulled steady down the vine row, a real American achievement that tractor.
The professor’s comments are insightful and cogent as usual. The one question we cannot answer is whether given stability and time, the Iraqi people are capable of creating a civil society. This will require a recognition that negotiation is preferable to fratricide and vendetta as a way of life. The former is our hope, but the later has a pedigree stretching back thirteen-hundred years. Certainly the South Africans, Salvadorans, and even the Afghans found the wiser course through reconciliation. We can only hope the Iraqis are as rational. But it seems to me that our (new) policy has only half a chance as long as the Syrian Alawites and the Iranian mullahs are left free to foment more conflict. Both regimes need to be removed – permanently.
Hopefully all Americans are hoping and praying for success in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of whether they are “for” or “against” our involvement. Both conflicts march towards some sort of reckoning and end up being what war always is to the twenty percent of soldiers that actually fight it – a knife fight in a dark basement, with an uncertain outcome.
There is a tendency to romanticize past generations that were challenged by war and compare our own reactions to our current struggle. Prior generations had their shortcomings to be sure, but the involvement, discussion or even principled disagreement of our current populace is embarrassing by comparison. It is as if most cannot be bothered and are far too mesmerized by whether the pop slut du-jour has underwear on, the latest white-trash reality show, how our 401k’s are doing, or which group of criminals will face each other in the upcoming “super” bowl.
Cynical perhaps, but when Dr. Hanson and others question whether the West will defend itself against a jihadist Islam that has no other goal than our obliteration, it is critical that we examine our culture and ask what indeed we will give up to defend it. Anything? A quarter-per-gallon gas tax perhaps to fund the off-budget costs? Or at the very least raise the miserly combat pay that the young men at the point of the spear get for risking being incinerated or shot?
Dr. Hanson has already addressed the Utopian Pacifism mindset and other causes for our oblivion to the hard choices before us. Empire, even a benevolent one, has associated costs in blood and treasure. The dumbed-down, something for nothing nature of our popular culture and inability or unwillingness to confront difficult choices is of greater peril to the Republic even than the jihadists. Freedom may not be free, but it damn well better be on sale!
Thank you for Carnage and Culture; it is a refreshing read when compared with the ‘we were just lucky’ book by JD. I enjoy reading your blog and hope that you continue to post. Thanks for adding another voice of common sense to the critical issues of our time.
Essential VDH
Hard times can make hard people. The years to come can only see Americans revitalize what made them great.—or else.
Wow! The top part (I-V) is some of VDH’s best analysis. I hope the White House, Rush Limbaugh and others read it and get it out more to the public. It frames so well the historic and modern reasons why this war is so, so important.
And please more on Gen. Petraeus (” A brilliant general is confident of its efficacy.”) as one man can make a difference.
One minor sports analogy: The Cornhusker men’s basketball team (my alma mater’s in-state rival) got a new coach late in the year. With essentially the same players, this new coach (Doc Sadler) has them playing much better. They play better defense, score more points, shoot a better percentage and win more games. The Corn beat my Jays this season and last year (with better Nebr. talent), Creighton beat them by 30.
A new general with a new strategy and tactics can make all the difference in the world.
And Chuck Hagel (Rino – NE) is only encouraging the Islamists with his constant carping and effort to defeat the American unity of effort.
The only thing I can find fault with your missive of 01/12/07 is that it’s ‘recurring’, not ‘reocurring’.
The fact that the US is hamstrung by ‘rules of engagement’ has been very frustrating to me. And that we would attempt to talk to Iran with what they’re doing to our soldiers in Iraq?
I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. God forgive me. Jimmy, you’re a much better carpenter than diplomat, politician, ambassador, and dare I say, patriot?
Mr. Hanson, thank you telling it like it is. Your site is at the top of my links.
sorry-
Please make that Dr. Hanson.
As usual a brilliant, thought provoking essay! Thank you Professor Hanson.
After reading, I pray what can I do? I love this country like most who read and comment here. I am descended from over two hundred years of American farmers, soldiers, and sundry middle class people – all hard working and patriotic. I feel that the war for most of us has now evolved at present to a war of ideas. To that end, what books of a growing library of anti-Islam texts are worth perusing and mastering? Many of these works seem to be repetitious. For sheer scholarship, Robert Spencer seems to be one of the best. Does anyone have any ideas in this area? Which of the many does or do Professor Hanson prefer?
I have read and reread portions of Mark Steyn’s latest. Brilliant! (He is the next best prose stylist to Professor Hanson.) He says that the fate of Western Civilization is in the hands of gun-toting American fundamentalist Christians, so to speak. I am one of these and proud of it.
Again, what can I do? I have three children who are conservatives. So far so good. I plan to try and make my local pastor aware of the dangers presented by Islam. Pastor John Hagee realizes it. Our Senator Santorum recognized it and was canned. But the most powerful response from a free USA to Islam in the battle of ideas will come from the pulpits of American churches.
In Christ’s name,
Amen
I find it hard to believe Mr.Hansom does not hold some critical committee Chair at a prestigious think tank. ( Well maybe he does and I am ignorant of the fact.)
His analysis and perspective is always thoughtful and right on target.
That brings me to my subject, thoughtfulness. A quality we find admirable,virtuous and typically western. The opposites are always despised and dismissed as unenlightened We have seen many persons characterized as thoughtful and those few we lionize. But today I wish to ask where is the man who will risk everthing ? Is this not the man who defies all convention and logic and flies in the face of consensus ? My wish would be for one slightly mad man to bomb the Al Jazzera building and reduce it to rubble. A Jimmy Doolittle for today ! Long live the General and his Raiders and may we remind our enemies that YOU EXIST ONLY BY THE RESTRAINT IN OUR SOCIETY. IF ON SOME FUTURE DAY YOU SHOULD CROSS THAT UNMARKED LINE AND OUR THOUGHTFULNESS VANISHES YOU WILL BE ERADICATED FROM THE EARTH.
One aspect of the administration’s change of strategy that is significant by its absence is an improved and more vigorous public communications plan.
when casualties among allied g.i.’s and iraqi civilians begin to mount as regrettably they must and will as a result of the 9-neighborhoods plan, media outlets all over the world can be expected like clockwork to go insane with rage and protest over the latest outrage by the Bushitler Regime.
American daily newspapers and wire services will participate, as will foreign dailies and wires. American national television networks, broadcast and cable, will participate, as will foreign tv stations.
every single detail or development that can be used to cast doubt on the efficacy of the President’s decision will be used, often without regard to proper context or even basic facts.
any pajamahadeen or new media acolyte can see this coming a mile away.
so then the question becomes, what is the administration’s plan to strengthen their public communications?
dan bartlett may have been a civil and more or less harmless press functionary in Texas, but he and his people have been a signal disaster in terms of their willingness or ability to push back on media outlets that are transparently and openly hostile to whatever this administration does.
until and unless the WH is prepared to mount a media campaign that goes on TV and stops dead in its tracks…in real time as “questions” are asked…the kinds of madness and lack of perspective we are sure to see very soon from (insert your favorite left-wing media devil here), then any successes that ARE or may be achieved on the ground will be utterly lost amid a non-stop barrage from the scions of old media.
In this regard, the Bush admin, led so poorly and ineffectually by the affable but out-of-their-league Texas kids, has signally failed the country generally and those who have supported them in particular.
Accordingly, whoever occupies the WH next had better grasp that the media is a battleground that is at least as important as the actual fighting space our troops occupy.
and if you cannot, while ON THE AIR, directly confront and challenge a Tim Russert or a Chris Matthews or a Matt Lauer or a Katie Couric, or a Bill Moyers or a Terry Moran or a David Gregory or a Wolf Blitzer or a John Roberts, then in what frame or context can you reasonably be expected to confront the Bad Guys?
A perfect illumination of what the main difference is between supporters and opponents of the war.
There will alway be those who have a knee-jerk blame America first reaction. And there will always be the “my country right or wrong” types.
But among sane, patriotic people the problem is one of – to quote a 9/11 observation – “a failure of imagination”. Pro-war types can imagine things getting much, much worse. An Iraq pullout seen around the world as a total American defeat at the same time young would-be jihadists around the globe rally to the victorious jihadist banner.
A failure too, to imagine another catastrophic attack on America. My argument to anti-war friends is that I want to win the war now to stop our devastating response to the next attack on America. If parts of American cities and tens of thousands of Americans go up in a cloud of smoke – a lot more Muslims are going to die. You have to be willfully blind not to see that. No anti-war crowd will be able to stop it.
The humane thing to do, the thing to do in the interest of peace – is to win the thing now.
Predictions are a dicey game, but I predict we won’t be able to wage this war properly until a catastrophic attack happens while a Democrat is President. Only Democrats are allowed to wage just wars.
Hossein Darakhshan, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt last week, said that Ahmadinijad has no control over the military and so he and the Iranian nuclear program need not be feared. Hugh got caught up in a who-controls-the-military debate, what Ayatollah might be in the wings to take over and in doing so, I think missed the point. Nukes need not be used by militaries anymore: they need only be passed behind the back to any terrorist group who wants to use them and all with deniability on the part of the regime, as you point out re: 9/11 and Yasser “Nora/Norma Desmond” Arafat’s ostentatious blood transfusion.
How ’bout that media though! Ted Kennedy sponsors a Bill that will require the president to give up his constitutional powers as CIC and have to beg Congress for every troop movement from Biloxi to Mosul or New Orleans. Imagine! A Congress sitting 24/7! War by committee! A competent press would run with this story: “Ted Kennedy doesn’t sponsor Bill to cut off funding for the war.”
Thank you professor for, once again, brilliantly and concisely illustrating the grand and noble works of this great country and people. Much hard work remains, but hard work is good and liberating to the souls of all men. Continue to fight the good fight! An entire nation reamins grateful.
Best regards
Sam Haldi
Atlanta, GA
My personal “nightmare scenario” is several small terrorist nukes or large “dirty bombs” going off more or less simultaneously (say a few weeks apart) in the financial districts of (e.g.) London, New York, and Tokyo.
Thus disrupting the trillions of dollars of daily capital flows that sustain the world economic system — and causing a worldwide depression of 1930′s (or worse) proportions.
Millions (billions?) of people in third-world countries starving to death? “First-world” democracies collapsing into tyrannies? Etc. Such things are not inconceivable.
How “robust” is the world financial system? Can it “route around” such damage fast enough to arrest the cascading business and economic failures that such a shock would otherwise cause?
Is anyone working on this?
I simply do not have the background knowledge to guess.
Mr. Hanson…shakespeare said men use their words too loosely in this business of language. You prevacerate at volume with byzantine obfustication knowing not what you espouse.
I am Lucifer’s Moonchild, This is his world. I worship my daddy and speak for him.
The bottom line is we got too many people on this planet. We need to get rid of a few billion, then hatch another batch of youngin’s to do the work. This bunch is old, lazy, cluttering up the welfare lines, and it’s us taxpayers footing every dime.
I say break out those psychotronic beam weapons and zap that Islamic nation, all 1.2 billion of them first, grind em up into hamburger and feed em to the rest of the jerks when the challange for sustainable water and food resources run out.
If we don’t, in another generation, we’ll have four billion to worry about.
thank you for your attention..lol
I agree with pretty much everything you say, and yet in some ways I disagree with your main premise, that radical Islam is a danger to our society. I think they’re a danger to our *people*, a very significant one. However, I remain convinced that were al Qaeda to find themselves in possession of a suitcase nuclear device (a worst case scenario for us: missiles would be much better, because they’re harder to hide) and managed to detonate it in an American city, does anyone imagine that this would be the end of life as we know it?
Recently, I read a novel by a suspense novelist named Robert Ferrigno. Ferrigno’s latest book, “Prayers for the Assassin”, looks into the future and tries to see a world in which the Radical Islamists won the war. The interesting thing is the gyrations and gymnastics that the author has to go into in order to have radical Islam conquer the United States. Instead of them attacking us openly, they somehow convince everyone that the nukes that destroyed NYC and DC were set by Israel (allegedly in retaliation for a lack of US support in the MidEast). My whole point is this: Ferrigno’s premise is at least hard to swallow, if not completely silly. It makes for an entertaining story, but in reality it’s highly unlikely.
My point, then, is this: whenever I hear anyone argue the war on terror, with one side arguing that all we have to do is talk to the radical Islamists or Iranians, and the other side saying in response that the talkers are going to lose us the war, I think they’re both wrong. Talking won’t stop al Qaeda or that idiot in Tehran. But fighting them is merely speeding up the progress of their own demise: they will lose, it’s foreordained.
The world is outgrowing these morons, and they know it. They’re trying to arrest everyone’s development, because of the pull that new things and ideas have on their own society. Each time a Saudi turns on a TV, an imam loses a tiny bit of power or influence. Same with computers, DVDs, CDs, magazines, books, even clothing and jewelry. As technology erodes their control over their own society, they’ll continue to get desperate and try various things, but they’re running out of options.
Good work as always Dr. Hanson..
I’m also of the belief that ideology is a danger, even more so in my view, than the rogue state or any one nations tyrant. Nazism, fascism, communism, all encompassed more than just a national government or national movement. These ideologies were spread throughout the world. And so it is with jihadism(islamism). Where the big difference lay is at the root of why this “ism” is more insidious than it’s predecessors. Nazism, communism, fascism all lacked one component, this being a religion. In fact, these forms of tyranny outlawed religion. To convince one to buy into a system of doing things is indeed a trick. Especially when that program is a program of controlling other peoples lives. Using a secular belief system is far more difficult a task than a religious belief system. The promise of divine providence is a very tempting idea. One can perhaps overlook human cruelty on this planet, even that comitted personally, if the act is condoned by humankind in the name of religion. If that person doling out the cruelty is made to believe he is carrying out God’s will and one day will be rewarded, well you have a devotee for life. This is where we find ourselves today, confronted with an enemy that believes it has a date with Allah and destiny. This power to persuade, to brain-wash, is being conducted world-wide(including the U.S.)and in the most frightening of fashions on the youth. They expect to die in this jihad and expect the youth they’ve brain-washed to step right in to take their place. Of course the leaders of this madness exempt themselves from martydom. They are the puppet-masters, the evil behind the evil. The opposing idea is there, stating it’s goal to not only challenge the idea of freedom but to exterminate it. This opposing idea not only seeks to control the economy and foreign policy of nation states, but to also control it’s people. The very foundation of a people is it’s belief system, it’s private practice of it’s faith. Here is again the difference between this “ism” and those that have come before. The others prohibited any and all religious expression or practice. Jihad seeks to impose it’s religious practice on all. Convert or be killed. This “ism” has drawn the line..will the forces of freedom oppose them on the battlefield???
I am not sure either whether the surge is the answer. But as one who seeks victory in Iraq I will support the strategy and pray for it’s success. The ROE, as stated by Dr. Hanson is the key to ultimate victory..in Iraq but also in the larger war. I have been pleased to read, those rare places and times you can find it, of our operations in Somalia. In case the folks have forgotten, this is another country we have been before. We were there in 93 only to cut and run and have to re-visit again today. This is the lesson for everyone, Somalia. Iraq will become Somalia Jr. if we make the same mistake we did in 93. Remember also this is not the first time we’ve been to Iraq. Leaving behind unfinished business is a recipe for future military engagements with the consequences being multiplied by ten. The same can be said of Iran. We tried to go there under the failed Carter administration to free our hostages in 1980. Now, in 2007, we are still having to confront the same problem, only this time the stakes have been raised with the spectre of an Iranian nuke program. When will we learn? I haven’t even mentioned the N. Korea problem which is out there simmering. No one wants armed conflicts, but what are the alternatives? Diplomacy with liars? We did that with N. Korea. U.N sanctions? We tried that with Iraq only to discover the biggest scam and scandal in the history of the world in the oil-for-food program. There is something called the inevitable, an eventuality. This is our world, our dilemma. Do we kick the can down the road, let our children and grand-children fight the enemy? By now an enemy that will have grown a hundred times stronger with potentially a hundred times more in WMD capability. Or, do we cowboy up like the generations before us and meet and defeat the enemy? Apathy is no defense. Indifference no protection. Procrastination no strategy. The time for talk and half-measures is nearing an end. We, America, we are the only ones who can get this ball rolling. The Muslisms themselves, the Muslims just seeking a better life for them and their families will be the ones in the end to bring peace and economic stability to that region of the world. But to do so they need a leader, a support-system, a friend-in-freedom. No need for us to look around and see who that is. We know who it is….and since we know it’s time to start acting like it………..
Thank you for another excellent analysis. All of us who read your articles must start speaking out every time we are confronted with appeasing and cultural relativistic jibberish. I hope I am strong enough for this.
miked, maybe we need suicide bombers walking into editorial offices, the last word being — BOOM!
VDH,
You wrote:
“Do we hit the Saudis whose charities funded them? The Syrians who gave them the weapons? The Iranians who trained them? Or the Pakistanis who offered them space?”
These questions point out that the enemy is dar al Islam. Until Islam is properly chastised WW4 will continue.
What properly chastised mean exactly I can’t say, but I feel sure it doesn’t entail appeasing them or withdrawing from any battle we fight against them anywhere in the world.
I so think there are more non-military things we could be doing: we should expel from the UN and all multilateral trade and investment and financial institutions all nations which condone polygamy, misogyny, endogamy, forced marriage and honor killings.
These barbaric practices should not merely be banned before a nation enters the EU, but before any nation joins the world of free nation.
This mean banning/expelling saudi arabia and pakistan and many other muslim nations.
If they won’t behave as if they are MODERN then they should be expelled from the organizations and benefits of modernity.
Since this is a non-violent and non-military and multilateral way to enforce the UN’s Declaration of Universal human Rights NO ONE SHOULD OBJECT.
(Well.. at least no one should have any real, rational, hinest and consistent basis for objecting, anyway!)
all the best -
The title of your post reminded me of a book on the fall of apartheid in South Africa titled “Move Your Shadow”. At one point, a black man stands before a white judge and says, if I remember correctly, that “when the war comes-” at which point the judge interrupted him. “War?” he said. “Did you say W-A-R?”
The judge did not grasp the concept that there could be any such thing just around the corner.
It is quite simple for people to ignore reality if it conflicts with their world view.
I hope you’re right about Bush’s resolve to change the ROE, confront Iran, if necessary (and bringing the second carrier group in and dispensing Patriot systems indicates he thinks it will be), and do whatever else is necessary, even as his Republican support starts to wane. Your analysis of the Jihadis has always seemed right to me, though I still wonder why they have not already lit off a few of their believers in the malls of America. Think of the economic damage of making women afraid to shop. Also the remark early on that there is no clear enemy in a nation state is strange, when later on you admit Iran is clearly that. And as for Carter, I believe if you search around a little you will find some investigative journalism that shows the sanctimonious old fraud is already in the pocket of the Saudis and other Arabs who have funded his Center, and even aided his peanut farm. Though, in truth, even Bush the elder gets money at his library from the Saudis, and undoubtedly others among the “realists” do likewise for their favorite things. Let’s hope the new effort in Iraq works, or if it doesn’t that we can retreat for a while without paying too high a price until the Dems realize that circling the wagons won’t work forever.
As I recall, Grant was already on the south side of Richmond, making Sherman’s approach to the Confederate rear pretty meaningless.
The siege took place, Lee’s army starved, the Army of the Potomac under Meade kept Lee in Richmond, and Sheridan destroyed every sortie that Lee made, both in the Valley and at 5 Forks.
Many disparage Grant’s battles, but Richmond was pretty well entrenched, so it was reasonable to try to fight Lee’s army outside those entrenchments. Grant continued to find people who were willing to try different ideas: Upton’s aggressive attacks into the “mule shoe”, Pleasance’s Mine.
Grant was over and over again the one key man who would push his subordinates into action, or set the stage for their battle.
In like manner, success that may come now in Iraq will stand on the shoulders of the giants who beat Saddam’s Army, secured Kurdistan, and have attritted the Baathists at the rate of 20 to 1. The Al Queda are too thin on the ground to have much effect. The Shia are dependant on Iranian funding, and because they need that funding, that is also a weakness. (It would be interesting to publicize the fraction of that blood money Mookie Sadr holds back for himself.)
Excellent analysis and comments. I too thought the 21,500 number was low, compared to the numbers we had heard earlier from McCain, the AEI presntation etc. However I have read in several places, and read again today (Sat) in the WaPost’s story on John McCain, that it was General Petraeus who set the level of the troop increase. Since he will be executing the new strategy at all its levels, it seems to me that if this is the optimal number to him, we should probably accept that.
There was another interesting comment in this story, which stated that Petraeus had told Sen McCain that he had an assurance that he could go back to the President and ask for more troops if it became necessary.
Speaking of Gen. Petraeus, it’s obvious that he has been meeting with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in preparation for his receiving the fourth star necessary to assume command of the Iraq War. Yet, the White House is apparently planning to send up the paperwork in two or three weeks.
My response is, you don’t have two or three weeks! You have a very brief window to begin winning back the support of the American people, which has been lost. The President can continue to provide leadership for the war, but he cannot be its focus any more. The people have turned against the war, and they have turned against the President.
Therefore, the focus should be on the new team the President has brought in, especially Gen. Petraeus. Contrast the receptions on Capitol Hill of Secretary Rice and to SecDef Gates this week. Sec. Rice was treated like a substitute teacher with a classroom of delinquents, while Sec Gates was treated respectfully, though they were promoting the same policy. Gates is a professional, experienced public official who gave a solid, strong defense of the policy. Still, it’s obvious his reception was due to the fact that he wasn’t Rumsfeld. Would it not have been better to spare sec Rice this disgraceful performance, and get Petraeus before the public as soon as possible???
With the exception of Tony Snow, who is very good, the communications operation at the White House is terrible.
I wrote a post talking about how militias became the biggest problem in Iraq, and also suggested a rule change rather than a surge. Except that I felt the rule change would be better because it would use fewer troops on patrol, and would run fewer risks with respect to unreliable Baghdad police and army personnel.
I’m not buying tbe idea that we’re wussier about war today than in the past. Wasn’t antiwar sentiment strong enough in the 30s to keep non-antiwar candidates from reaching power in the US and UK? And even in the ancient Greece you studied, arms races and wars had their opponents, like Socrates.
until we are prepared to hang the leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, sudan and the al sadr brigades in a town square we are not prepared to win. today’s hanging, without a trial, is effected with cruise missiles on the same night unannounced.
is it not true that we are in a war? is it not true that these leaders/generals daily plot to kill us by one’s and two’s with thousands to follow in the future? is it not true that they preach genocide? is it not true they fund all that we call radical islam? the fact that they live sipping their lattes tells me we are not prepared to win at this time. they are defining our battle space.
we are UN speaking and nuancing our way to a grave.
No Jim, suicide bombers in newspaper offices is most definitely NOT what we need, you troll.
“and collapse the world oil market though conservation, more exploration, alternative fuels, and nuclear power. 20 -dollar-a-barrel oil…”
Not doable. Unrealistic.
You can’t get oil prices to 20$/b when alternate sources are a. not available and won’t be available for decades is required quantities, and b. cost over 100$/barrel or equivalent output.
I think your analysis is very good (and unlike that from much of the left at least there is an attempt to understand the situation). But I think this is already a defeat. While I lack any specific knowledge it seems that while this has been a war fought in Iraq, it has been a war with multiple enemies including Al Quada, Saddam and Iran. Given the political reality we do not seem to have the ability to fight Iran (nor do our Iraqi “allies”). As such its hard to believe that we can ever be successful.
The frightening scenario for me is that we pull out, Iran fills the vacuum and the conventional wisdom becomes that “Bush/misapplication of American power” caused the situation. This provides Iran with the time and cover to build their nuclear arsenal. And the next Islamic/West conflict is much bloodier.
Another well written, well reasoned commentary, thank-you. Here is a question or comment, please don’t consider it racial:
1. I believe the Iranians have nuclear weapons (how can they not, it only took the United States 4 years starting from ignorance, with much more primitive equipment).
2. The Iranians are currently working to make the weapons small enough to deliver easily – by surface means.
3. Their intent is to smuggle these smaller weapons into the US, and hide them around the nation .
4. They will then detonate one in a major city with terrible results.
5. They will then announce they 10, 20 or whatever bombs planted around the US, therefore the US must surrender or else these will be denoted one by one until we surrender – how do you think we will respond?
I think this fits Islam history and the Iranians current actions.
Good column, Dr. Hanson. My response is in the form of a reply to early commenter Ivanhoe, who mentioned “The dumbed-down, something for nothing nature of our popular culture and inability or unwillingness to confront difficult choices.”
Our “dumbed-down” culture is amazingly productive and is acquiring new knowledge at an astounding, unprecedented rate. Because our parents and grandparents were creative and productive, as we too are, we have both extraordinary means of communication and the time to use them. The adventures of the “slut du jour” reflect the momentary fashion, the short-lived taste of a few million people out of 300 million. But the productivity and wealth that give those millions the time and the resources to indulge their taste are the real story.
The other part of the real story is our extraordinary military strength – we could destroy our enemies utterly in mere moments. But to do so might kill millions of innocents, too, so we will not do so until utterly forced to. The story, again, is not that we haven’t won yet in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is our historically unprecedented patience. I see the divisions in Washington and in the US population generally not as weakness, but as a mechanism for fine-tuning the decision making in a nation of such extraordinary power.
We are so productive that we can afford time for trivialities in entertainment. We are so strong that we must take the time to get any decision about use of our ultimate power right. These things are not signs of weakness in the most powerful, most productive, most inventive, and most generous nation that has ever existed. They are, like the soldiers in Iraq and Aghanistan, signs of strength.
PS TractorianaNot to be overly pedantic, but it has always been my understanding that Massey-Ferguson pre-1993 was an Ontario company, so your 265s were a true Canadian achievement. Canadians (which includes me by birth if not by current status) are prickly about “cultural imperialism” and that probably includes absconding with ex-national treasures.
Thank you for continuing to look at the world with history in mind. The longer view — or more all-encompassing view — is sorely lacking by our so-called intellectuals these days. We need people like you to cut through the 30 second soundbite and frame the argument in a historical — and therefore, rational — context.
I, too, support the idea of Bush’s “surge” in troops — not because I think it’s brilliant, but because I hope and pray that their targeted use will yield results. And to say it’s just a military move is ignoring the fact that the U.S. sending MORE troops and not beginning to pull out sends the right *political* message to the enemy: we ain’t leaving. I actually believe that if it weren’t such a political hot potato here in the U.S., we could increase the troop level even more to really send the message.
And your remarks on Jimmy Carter are spot on. He was a disgrace to the office when he was President and now he’s going out that way. Poor, ego-centric idiot. He should have left well enough alone. I feel bad for whoever has to eulogize him when he’s gone.
There is much to disagree with in this post. I’ll pick only a few.
1. The Nazi ideology, Deutschland uber alles, was not designed to appeal to people around the world. The Germans did better in WWII than in WWI because technology was better suited to their military strategy. German soldiers were too exhausted at the Marne to fight well. In WWII, they got there on trucks, not on foot.
2. It’s true that we should deny terrorists bases in other countries. The invasion of Afganistan made sense from this point of view. The invasion of Iraq did not.
3. A big part of the fight against terrorism is a fight for hearts and minds. The most effective strategy, paradoxically, may not be shock and awe. The associated ill will might outweigh short term military objectives.
“So one reoccurring topic is the controversy over just how serious is the threat of radical Islam.”
Simply stated, the co-opted, raging, and radical Islam is a weapon aimed at humanity and has become the greatest and gravest danger to mankind in all of human history.
This is the asteroid that has entered our gravitational pull and is no longer going to bounce off our atmosphere and careen harmlessly into space, thanks to the mirrored narcissism of neo-Socialists who feed, nurture, suckle and enlarge the duality and duplicity that fuel the growth of the negative energy of each of them in turn.
The neo-Socialists [or World Populists, if you prefer], of the west have not only not helped to repel this tumbling asteroid, they seek to draw it close to our collective breast.
These Citizens of the World are so enamored with their preening and fawning, and prostletizing about their own “enlightenment”, that it matters more to them to debase and denigrate the “home team” as a show of “solidarity” with those who mean to conquer us…or even destroy us.
At every turn, they broadcast on the world stage…their disdain for being “countrymen”, because, after all, doing so would be un-chic, unhip, unenlightened. Here and in Western Europe, an Orwellian twist of fate has elevated the “message” to a station that has it now more important than the truth. And facts are merely inconveniences….that are easily disposed of and we are given “replacement facts” when we need them. Just as good, because the “message” is all that matters.
“the absence of a clearly-identified enemy nation state, has suggested to many that there is hardly a present threat comparable to dangers posed by Nazis, fascists, Japanese imperialists, or Soviet and Chinese communists of the past.”
Here is where the duality and duplicity of Raging Islam meets the duality and duplicity of World Populism. Both advancing under a banner of peaceful co-existence [if the rest of you would simply roll over and comply], they fuel each other’s negative energy toward the West.
Raging Islam suggests that it is we, who have bad intentions…seeking to impose our will and infiltrate their psyche, turning good girls into bad and steal their riches. Who fuels this fantastic notion? The Ministry of Media from the World Populist communication stream. WE are painted to the world, through the prisms and filters of those who own the information stream.
And each and every day, in each and every way…the World Populists paint us as the bad guy. This fuels and energizes the raging cultists to point a finger and say “See, we are telling you the truth”…which fuels and energizes the World Populists to broadcast all the more this inspired rage…on and on in a cycle of homemade delusion.
It serves the interest of the World Populists to keep them enraged, so that they can prop up neo-Socialism and it serves the interests of the Raging Caliphates to have a legit “cause” to froth and maim and kill and convert.
Our own dear leftists make bedfellows with the tumbling asteroid, because it infuses the “message” with immediacy. We need to “change our ways”…because the “world” hates us as we are. Neat trick. Paint us as hateable, then point to the rage and say…”see?”.
“Jihadism, however, resonates with Muslims in Pakistan, the Arab World, the Philippines, or Indonesia. Race, language, landscape, or nationality are not always predictable in our enemies, only a certain shared derangement guided by the idea that the West and its modernization have eclipsed Islam and are in some way responsible for radical Muslims’ current sense of inferiority and lost entitlement.”
When our own information stream is so corrupted, so as to advance a notion that we are to blame for all the world’s ills…then we should not be surpised that those who mean to do us harm would use those words as weapons against us.
“While it is true that al Qaedists don’t posses (yet) Soviet-style nuclear missiles; still, equipped with miniaturized weapons, stealthy terrorists can now hit almost anywhere. And there is no logical reason why in the next act of escalation, they will not evolve from planes and bombs to more deadly chemicals or germs—or a nuclear Iran or a Pakistan run by jihadists.”
The asteroid is inside the gravitational pull now. Our own World Populists have pulled it close to our collective breast. They INVITE the inevitable. It serves their cause. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.
“Thus it is hard for us to target patrons who by design deny culpability, and nullify classical deterrence between nation states.”
And here is where duality meets duplicity. Under a banner of “peace” comes the trojan horse. If we confront the man behind the curtain pulling the levers, our own World Populists will turn on us with a vengance. “What has Iraq [Iran, Syria etc] ever done to us?” they will bleat, with childlike innocence and misting eyes. They will paint us as bloodthirsty, oil hungry, capitalistic money-grubbing, imperialistic and war mongering. As they always do.
And those on the sidelines will listen…and many of them will believe.
“All such governments would immediately “deplore” such attacks, offer their condolences, and claim they had no influence over their cheering crowds (in the manner Arafat gave blood after the West Bank street high-fived 9/11).”
And the story will be told…by our own information stream…from the viewpoint of the duplicitous enemies who are bedfellows with the World Populists. We can’t win hearts and minds, because the “message” is corrupted in a rigged game.
“attacks on computer systems, government, and corporations that ripple out with life-or-death consequences.”
This is merely the difference between the asteroid hitting land or water. A tidal wave or blackened sky that blots out the sun is just as effective to wipe us out. This is like guessing which chamber holds the bullet in our game of Russian roulette.
“A quarter-century of multiculturalism, utopian pacifism, and cultural relativism have convinced many that there are no real cultural differences in the world, much less Western or American exceptionalism. Resistance is outdated and a poor remedy for aggression that is not prompted by evil, but rather follows only from ignorance, poverty, and misunderstanding—much of it induced by a grasping and immoral Western civilization.”
Even more to the point, the “message” that we are the “root cause” of anger and resentment makes us “deserving” of the aggression. Again, neat trick. If we do nothing, we make the raging enemy bolder…he sees as weak and unwilling to stand up to a bully. If we react, we are picking on “the little guy”. Either way, we lose.
“So What Do We Do?”
First, take back the information stream. We cannot effectively function on a world stage when the entirety of our existence is caricatured by those who mean to undermine us.
There is no other order of business that takes precedence, because the corrupted information stream impacts each and every action we take. It impacts us at the polling booth, it impacts us in international tribunals, it impacts us in our laws, policies and planning. It is the seminal issue.
If we continue to allow those who mean to undermine us to reframe the issues, to use “replacement facts” instead of truth, to paint us as evil and monstrous…then we can’t make a move that will make a difference.
We will fail, and we will take Israel down with us in that failure.
Either we believe we are the “good guys” or we don’t. Obviously, our own World Populists are invested in portraying us in exactly the opposite fashion. If we believe we are, then we need to get that truth out. And we need to stand up and be counted each and every time another lie is spread about us, either through “truthiness” or “replacement facts” or “caricatures of truth” or any of the other invidious tactics used by those who mean to undermine us.
The Bathos of Jimmy Carter
“and actively campaigning among Europeans for the Nobel Prize by undermining a sitting US President at a time of war.”
And duality meets duplicity one more time. Jimmy Carter is the poster child for the disease. A failed and miserable relic of the origins of World Populism, this vile and despicable, self-promoting, grandstanding, fool…has minced about for three decades under the banner of “peace” and “understanding”…but uses all the same misdirection, misrepresentation and distortions of his heirs to the World Populist throne.
The first aristocrat of the World Populist movement, he was idealized as a hero…and emperor of the Citizens of the World. But he can’t withstand the microscope. Even with the naked eye, he crumbles and withers as a doddering dainty…wrapped up in image and lacking in substance.
His venom toward Israel is now mirrored by his World Populist heirs and his denigration and debasing of his country and countrymen, made him the first Timeshare American. He owned a property interest here, but was not invested in the country…only in his image as a Citizen of the World.
His involvement in the Habitat for Humanity was a front to build glass houses from which he could throw stones at anyone who dared to love this country enough to stand and be counted in confronting its enemies.
“All this is very sad.”
And dangerous. When we will finally have enough? Who will be willing to stand up and be counted?
When looking at Carter’s great follies, the campaign for the Nobel pales in comparison to his behind-Clinton’s-back nuclear deal with North Korea.
That will, in the long run, prove to be one of the biggest disasters in world history.
Thanks to Carter, the NoKo’s now have the bomb.
A subject rarely addressed is the composition of the US Army forces.
The large amount of “PX” troops (or overhead in business terms) where there is a problem of finding sufficient combat troops, would indicate that there is a bureaucratic problem with our forces. I respectively suggest that this a subject which should be reviewed in depth.
Thank you for your insightful articles.
James Tomlinson
I agree with Don Meaker. Sherman’s success was built squarely upon Grant’s grit. I believe that there are many parallels between Grant and Bush 43, such as having drinking problems, being Methodist, being rhetorically challenged, and having much courage by risking failure. As soon as W wanted to go into Iraq, I sensed immediately that he was politically taking a huge risk. Doing the right thing come what may is the essence of courage. The problem today is that we in the US demand perfection under all conditions. This is a product of our affluence and success in material goods inclusive of extreme automation – note the difference between 5 place division of integers on paper with a pencil versus a hand held calculator.
Nice work, as usual. You inspire me to bone up on my history in order to better put these modern day conflicts in perspective.
Among most of the comments to this post there seems to be the assumption that we will prevail in the long run. Seems to me, however, that this war, not just the battle in Iraq, cannot be decisively won until those in charge sell the American public (and to a lesser extent the publics of the other free countries) on the only reasonable and necessary justifcation for any war: agressors are threatening our freedom and lives, and free people cannot accept that. Our forces are fighting with their hands tied behind their backs because of the constraints placed on them by public opinion. Islamic totalitarianism cannot beat western liberalism (liberalism in the traditional sense), but Western Civilization could cede its existence out of misplaced guilt and its failure to appreciate its own right to survive and prosper without apology for its success.
In the long run it would be far less cruel to both the Islamicists and our own people to bring full force to bear sooner rather than later. The longer we maintain the status quo, the stronger our enemies grow. The stronger our enemies become, the more costly in lives and resources (on both sides) it will be to finally resolve this clash of freedom versus tyranny, assuming we find the will to bring our strength to bear. It will not end until there is a clear winner and a clear loser. I, for one, value my freedom and want to be on the winning side.
OF COURSE I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE WASTE OF TIME, LIFE, MONEY IN THE IRAQ WAR. PREHAPS OUR LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS AN IQ TEST BEFORE ASSUMING OFFICE. THE MOST DENSE DUNCE WOULD KNOW IF YOU ARE STILL FAILING AFTER WASTING NEAR FOUR YEARS ITS PAST TIME TO TRY SOMETHING NEW OR BAIL OUT. ENEMY SOURCES OF LOGISTICS IN IRAN AND SYRIA ARE STILL OPERATING UNTOUCHED, ARMED MILITIAS ARE STILL KILLING OUR TROOPS UNTOUCHED, STRICT RULES OF ENGAGEMENT GIVE COMFORT AND CONFIDENCE TO OUR ENEMY. IF NOT ALLOWED TO FIGHT A WAR LIKE A REAL WAR SOMETHING GRAVELY IS WRONG IN THE LEADERSHIP LINEUP. A PROFIT MAKING ORGANIZATION WOULD NOT, AND COULD NOT, TOLERATE THIS INSANE INEPTNESS.
BOB I.
Mr. Stanley, I don’t think we’re likely to see individual suicide attacks in the malls. At least not soon. The fallout of that would be a severe restriction on men of Mid-Eastern descent. This would be counter productive to their efforts to organize the ‘big’ ones.
Also remember that the US is an armed Nation very much unlike Europe. After a few malls were hit it would be a very dangerous place for any Mid-Eastern folks to move about.
Cut to reality, folks.
The whining over “Rules of Engagement” is the clearest sign that NONE of the newest, newer-than-new strategy should be taken seriously. It is Bush’s first shot in establishing the Dolchstosslegende of two lost wars. (How you folks can exonerate the shrub from the supposedly overly restrictive RoE we currently have when he and his cabal have dictated every US action, I do not know.)
Prepare for the GOoPers to be cast into the political wilderness.
David Nicholas said:
“However, I remain convinced that were al Qaeda to find themselves in possession of a suitcase nuclear device (a worst case scenario for us: missiles would be much better, because they’re harder to hide) and managed to detonate it in an American city, does anyone imagine that this would be the end of life as we know it?”
It would certainly cause widespread panic in all major cities as the populace wonders if bombs are also in their’s waiting to be detonated. Can you imagine a Katrina-style panic evacuation the next day all across America, and where would they go?
It doesn’t have to be a city that is bombed to bring America to its knees, ever hear of an EMP bomb? It’s a nuke detonated at high altitude which releases a huge electromagnetic shock wave knocking out everything electrical for hundereds of miles in all directions: power stations, automobiles, aircraft, etc. Melting millions of miles of powerlines would certainly change our lives for years — until they could be rebuilt.
Iran was reported last year to be testing long-range, high-altitude missles from ships detonating them over the Caspian Sea.
The real problem in the USA is that many people do not believe any of this could happen, they do not believe the enemy can defeat us. Until they do, the war as it is being fought will continue — a no win war. We can’t win until we are willing to destroy that which is causing the problem by any means necessary.
I agree with Anonymous’ neo-Socialists (World Populists) tag, they are the studenst who spent their summers in Europe and, like John Kerry and France, think Europe is a wonderful lifestyle with a four-day workweek and 13 paid holidays a year, not to mention 30-day vacations for everybody and national healthcare. Europe IS a nice place to visit only because you can leave the misserable living conditions and antiquated lifestyles. Why do you think Europe’s wealthist move here?
Mr. Nicholas, I think you may misunderstand the difference between our and their definition of “winning”.
America will Islamified when Hell freezes over. They don’t want – although they may dream – to conquer us. They just want to destroy us. That’s “winning”, even if it destroys them, too.
Our globalized economy is robust, but far from indestrucible. A global banking meltdown that destroys all the “paper” wealth floating around – trillions upon trillions of dollars – and nations defaulting on their debt and $200/barrel oil (the retalitory strike on Iran scattering fallout across the Iraqi oil-fields doesn’t seem too farfetched, although I don’t know weather patterns in the ME) will stop global trade.
Dr. Hanson sounds like he’ll be OK: He has a tractor. Anyone else here know how to farm? We won’t be “destroyed” but I much prefer the 21st century to the 18th.
I read this morning at NRO that Bill Buckley has thrown in the towel on the war. He answers my earlier question about whether or not the Iraqi people can create a civil society. Buckley says ‘no’ and sees a partition as inevitable. Time will tell.
Brian J. your post would merit comment but for the lack of having or making a point. Nice to see you put your politics above your nation. Sadly that is in keeping with the new democrat tradition(ask Lieberman and Miller). Lost two wars? You almost post this gleefully……
So What Do We Do?
This enemy cannot be categorized in the same way as previous enemies. We should be acting against the Islamist command and logistics structures; enemy mosques, mullahs and moneymen should not remain off limits.
Repugnant though the prospect is, we should begin thinking about the unthinkable, i.e. the use of WMD including against populations. Heaven forbid that this struggle reaches a stage at which either Western or Islamic civilization will be destroyed–the administration’s lapses have brought us closer to that still-distant point–, but if things come to that pass, I want the West–the USA in particular–to be the survivor.
On the other hand, I gather that much of counterinsurgency is counterintuitive. We should examine how to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy’s cultures through the ruthless use of soft power. This is the part of the struggle which we are not even trying to contest. Even worse, our efforts may be giving the impression of weakness.
Our Current Approach
My lack of confidence in the commander-in-chief’s leadership does not give me a license to subvert his efforts.
When they first assumed command, Grant and Sherman were not the Grant and Sherman whom history remembers. They were dubious second- or third-tier choices who were put in command only because the “best” generals had failed. General Petraeus should be given a chance.
I don’t want another national disgrace like abandoning the South Vietnamese. The material consequences this time would be much worse.
“Reality” is now a game of who can get there with the most written, stated or commonly promoted and proselytized ideas or arm chair theory presented through the MSM and magic wand like the most inane theories and comments become the most believed “facts”.
And I thought we had culturally gone beyond the “witch doctor” phase.
Our politically correct and “prestigious” institutions, academic and political, are now being run by those most in need of a productive life lived in the real world of informed experience. Their collective comments on any subject however seem to be just a cacophony of PC Utopian noise.
For the antidote to our current problems with a resurgent and deadly Islamism we will need to be taken off our highest level perch–and we will be. The PC Utopians will of necessity again become the trivia they are.
Hard times will demand informed experience and objective gut wrenching actions that will determine if America as conceived will survive. Trivial PC people will not do that.
Those that can will start the climb all over again and eventually the Utopians can live again in their trivia and thrive. It is human to do so and PC Utopian thinking is a disease of the human mind that has been divorced from reality for to long and has a “witch doctor” mentality on how humans think and act.
Listening to or reading comments from VDH gives hope that all have not lost their basic common sense– put there by informed experience.