The liberal way to make war, by an European

10/14/06 | A Swiss citizen, who can already see the disastrous liberal policies in Europe)

[drzz]

The American exception

A French philosopher wrote, in 1793 : “this country could become the hope of the world. It could show people that the folk can live free without the pressure of the aristocracy and dictators.” It is this idea, promoted by the declaration of Independence, that explains why America’s military power has been used with balance since the birth of the country. The US did not have colonies because of a geographical chance, but according to the spirit that created the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. I shall say the same about Switzerland. Switzerland has never had any colony in its history not because of its littleness or its weakness. Other little countries had colonies or experienced wars during centuries. But Switzerland was created by the free spirit of farmers joining against the tyranny of the Austrian Knights Habsbourg. They wanted freedom and peace. The concept of neutrality was born from this spirit. It explains why a country with four languages can survive to the differences and difficulties coming from this separation of minds, between French speaking and German speaking people, for example.

An European looking every day at France or Spain, old monarchy land, it is a thing that I see immediately. And so do probably the Iranians living under dictatorship, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Africans…. The US are a special country who was born special and continues to fascinate the world because it is special. The “American dream” is born from this specificity and will endure as long as it is followed.

Making American weak : the Clinton years

Bill Clinton was a president in times of peace. Bosnia war and Kosovo war were not total wars and didn’t mobilize great military strength. I disagree with your assessment that Clinton’s view did favour the stability of the world. On the contrary, Clinton’s way to deal with problems endangered the security of the world from the beginning. Back to Rwanda. Clinton refused to come to the help of the Somali people. A genocide occurred. Will the Tutsi forgive the US to have abandoned them? Rwanda is a lost ally. Somalia. In 1993, Clinton withdrew of the country after having lost 19 Rangers in an ambush. The short term stability was lost, but soldiers’s lives were won. Somalia is today the new heaven for radical islam terrorist in north Africa. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Cheikh Mohammed told US interrogators that Al-Quaeda began to gain strength when radical islamists saw the soldiers of the US abandoning combat after a so little battle. Diplomats the US embassy in Niger would pay this a few years later. Both stability and security are lost today in Somalia. Bosnia and Serbia. In 1995, Clinton ordered military strikes to stop Milosevic, but refused to overthrow the dictator, arguing that this would threatened the so-called stability of the world. Milosevic understood the weakness of his adversary and invaded and massacred in Kosovo. Military servicemen under NATO leadership had to be called four years later for a ground attack to stop Milosevic. What had Clinton win in 1995 to follow his “stability” program ? Israel-Palestine. In 1993, Clinton was pictured with Rabin and Arafat shaking hands in the Rose Garden. The Oslo agreement promised a Palestinian state. In the reality of the ground, if meant Arafat had his own dictatorship created under the applause of the international community. The Intifada in 2000 and the modern fights up there proved that Clinton’s view failed. Arafat was a terrorist and a fanatic. He didn’t change his mind because of Oslo and Clinton, by betting on a dictator lost both security and stability. Al-Quaeda. In 1998, 2000, Al-Quaeda stroke America, in Niger and Yemen. Whatdid Clinton ? He sent long range missiles in Afghanistan to hit Talibans camps. We don’t even know if he had some results. Al-Quaeda understood that Clinton didn’t want to go to war and launch war in America. 9/11 ? The result of a “stability policy”. North Korea. Useless to notice the results we gained…

The new worldwide threat

The Danish cartoons anger that went form among muslims early this year, the recent pope controversy, the fact a French philosopher is hiding because of this writing about islam, are the same part of the problem. A problem that was born centuries ago and still take lives of many every day, every where. The Darfur genocide is done by radical islamist, the Israeli-palestinian conflict either, iraq, iran, pakistan, algeria, somalia, ethiopia, syria, saudi arabia… I suggest you to read Tony Blankley (“The West las Chance”, Washington, Regnery, 2005) who gave a good picture of the stakes of the new century. It is not a “War on Terror”, but a war against “radical islam” (Victor Davis Hanson), “political islam” (Daniel Pipes) or “islamo-fascism” (Bush). It is not a war engaged against a few people gathering in a local house and talking about how to destroy Occident. We are talking about an ideology filled every hour of every day among 1.5 billions muslims around the world, and especially among the people of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia gives money to fill the arab world with anti-semitism and anti-americanism. Syria and Lebanese Hezbollah pay millions of adds, newspapers, radio shows to spread their ideas. You cannot fight this ideaology , as largely spread as the communism, with “stability policy”. What we learned from Clinton’s years, is that “stability policy” strengthened radical islam, dictatorships and… instability.

It is a main historical non-sense to think Kissinger’s “realism” did end the Cold War. Reagan’s view ended years of agreements upon WMD and the fact they were not allowed to be spread and used. Reagan understood the only way to defeat USSR was to confront it. In the 1980’s, the USSR were at the most powerful period of its history. Despite the risks, Reagan ordered the WMD agreements not to be sign. He counter-attacked where new communist countries were born, and launch a big, expensive arms program. The USSR, the “realists” and all the anti-war crowd complained, and said this would endangered the “stability of the world”. The USSR, incapable to follow Reagan’s aggressive policy collapsed. And the US and the free world won the Cold War. Harry Truman, in 1945, had shown to the communists he was prepared to fight communism, wherever he would attack. Korea was a terribly hard war. But South Korea was saved. The USSR understood the US would react. They understood Truman was not afraid of confront the danger. Which country is an ally of the US, today, in the war on terror ? Clinton’s Somalia, Serbia, Palestine ? No, Truman’s South Korea, Reagan’s eastern Europe, Bush Afghanistan and Bush’s Iraq. Real stability, not fake short term agreement with a dictatorship ready to shoot America at the back when needs be.

Carter wanted stability. He lost Iran and let USSR grow. Reagan wanted to pursue a policy to spread “freedom against the empire of evil”. Carter is now one of the worst president of all times, Reagan and Truman two of the greatest. Bush 43 is on the way to join them. Like David Frum (“The right man) implies, supporting Clinton’s way is like wanting to deal with 9/11 like if this event has never happened. Because Clinton’s policy helped 9/11 to happen. Bush 41 policy let the US blind about Iraq, and the feeling for all the dictators of the region that they could do whatever they want without risking anything. They did. And you can see the result today.

This is a “unipolar moment” like Post’s Charles Krauthammer wrote. The US have to use their military, politically and morally strength to make changes in the Middle East, or the country will live a terrible XXIst century, and I wouldn’t write about Europe, we are already under great pressure of radical islam that our freedom of speech about this subject is almost denied by growing radical crowds, especially coming from France. In 2030, demographic studies show France will become the first Islamic country of Europe. Islam scholar Bernard Lewis and UE statistics say the same. Anti-semitism is already in a high never reached since WWII in Europe, and I don’t think you imagine the level of anti-americanism. This is not the fault of America. America stands and fights against radical islam. Because a stand and a fight would cost Europe reforms of its State healthcare and social program, and because Europe decided that “war has end” (quote taken from the advertisements for the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, a major treaty in the history of the UE), my continent has decided not to fight. Not the Iraq War. But any war. They went to Afghanistan but didn’t want to go. Spain fled from Iraq with an incredibly cowardice after 3/11. Since the 1970’s, Europe has decided to make an alliance with the arab world in exchange of oil and immigration. The arab world agreed but only if Europe showed it was an ally about international subjects. You cannot imagine the media cover of the Israeli-palestinian conflict here. You don’t realize, I think, that most of the French called the terrorists that killed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians “resistant”. Neither do you think that for Europeans in a 2000 poll the most dangerous countries in the world are 1) Israel 2) United States and then Iran, North Korea…

Europeans believe in “stability” dreams and the UN, not because of their love of peace and human rights (as we have seen, “stability policy” made war and genocides), but because of their will of doing absolutely nothing. Europe is becoming a large Switzerland ; neutrality. No long-term views, no will to be engaged in any war (De Villepin said, on September 3rd 2006, that “France was not engaged in any war on terror” and Chirac said to iranians that France would use all its power to make abort any war or attack against nuke-developping Iran). Ahmadinejad says he want to erase Israël ? France doesn’t care. Palestinians terrorists kill children with bombs filled with nails ? They come to Europe and are celebrated like heroes (one of them went to my school and held a conference against Israel when I was 15). I advise you to read Bat Y’eor, “The Euro-Arab Axis”, in order to understand the real deal of Europe right now. France is already and dramatically changing into something really ugly, like a result of years of appeasement and “realism” policy that let France ally and discuss with radical Islamic dictators. It is still protecting them. Even if the French politics know the hatred spread in the Middle East is also targeting French people. Appeasement is a form of cowardice you finally pay.

The Conservative agenda : to stand against terror instead of running away

Like Churchill wrote, criticizing the “stability policy” of Chamberlain that led UK into WWII : “You had the choice between the war and the dishonour, you chose the dishonour and you’ll get the war.”

The US have chosen to go to war. It will be hard. But finally Iraqis, Afghans are your allies. All the dissents of the muslim world are praying for America and the Bush administration to push forward. Many dictators are afraid and look for nukes, and those regimes will be overthrow, either by military power, or strong diplomacy supported by military power. And then, the Middle East will be stable, really stable. Two democracies never went to war against each other. In the war against radical islam, the dictatorships of the Middle East should disappear. Or other strikes would hit American personal all over the world. Europe show the mental offensive of the radical islam can change a whole and weak continent. The “struggle for civilization”, like Bush said. Like Churchill with the Fulton address, Bush will become the unpopular guy that make the people strop dreaming and living in reality. Clinton will disappear from the history of WWIV but Bush will be credited for it. 50 years from now, when historians will study how the Iraq war changed the Middle East and liberate millions of muslims by showing them the dictatorship was not eternal, that they could vote, debate and think freely, and stop spreading hatred and human bombs in the world, those historians will salute the extraordinary courage of President Bush to have chosen to be unpopular in the short term but to have engaged his country into the war against the new totalitarism and save the world.

Like Truman. Like Reagan. Fighters for freedom.

WE are in a time of World War IV. WE need leaders who look in the eyes of the enemy without running away. People who stand against their own values and troops like the liberals (Kerry : troops are terrorists / Pelosi : we must withdraw from Iraq immediatly) are inside enemies of the USA, not leaders in a war for survival.

STAND AGAINST THE ENEMY. NO TIME TO DOUBT.

NO TIME FOR COWARDS.

DON'T LET LIBERALS GAIN CONGRESS !

(It was a message from an anxious European who can already see the disastrous liberal policies in a cowardly western Europe)

[ClaireSolt]

Thanks. That's encouraging. Some Europeans are waking up. It is too much to expect American to defend the world. We are only 300 million of 6 billion.