Posted on 07/14/2006 5:14:03 AM PDT by SJackson
In this war, in contrast to WWII, the West is still confused about who the enemy is.
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Winston Churchill said these words on November 10, 1942, after the allied victory over Gen. Rommel's Nazi army in what he called "the Battle of Egypt."
The war against militant Islamism, by contrast, does not generally pitch armies against each other. But it is no less of a war; the jihadis seek to subjugate both Muslim nations and the West, and the West is fighting to defend its freedom and security.
What is strange about this war, almost five years after 9/11 and after numerous follow-on attacks, is that - unlike World War II - the West is still confused about who the enemy is, how to fight it, and even over whether it is at war at all.
It is in this context that events of the last two days, as dismaying as they are, are also tentatively encouraging.
On Wednesday, a few hours after Hizbullah, Iran's proxy army in Lebanon, attacked Israel, the foreign ministers of the UN Security Council's permanent members - US, UK, France, China and Russia - plus Germany (P5 + 1) jointly announced that they had tired of Teheran's prevarications and would seek a resolution requiring Iran to dismantle its nuclear program.
"The first step," US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton explained, "will be to make mandatory the suspension of uranium enrichment activities... [and give Iran] a limited, fixed period of time" to cease them. "The next step, if they fail to comply, would be to go to economic sanctions. No question about that," Bolton said.
What does this have to do with the two-front war that Israel is embroiled in? Everything.
It is inconceivable that Hizbullah attacked Israel without the knowledge and blessing of Iran, on which it is wholly dependent. Iran reportedly retains direct control over the longer-range missiles that are ostensibly part of Hizbullah's arsenal. Among these may be the missiles that rained down on Nahariya and Safed on Thursday.
On June 16, the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that Syrian-Iranian talks in Teheran "did not only deal with... strategic cooperation between the two countries, but also with the situation in Lebanon... the situation in Palestine, and with ways of assisting Hamas and the [Islamic] Jihad in their conflict with Fatah" (translation by www.memri.org).
The day before Hizbullah's attack, Iran nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, after his meeting with EU envoy Javier Solana, went to Damascus for a surprise visit.
Putting all this together, it is entirely plausible that Iran either ordered or encouraged the Hizbullah attack to distract and intimidate the P5 + 1 foreign ministers meeting at that moment to consider Iran's fate.
What is plain to see, again, is the seamlessness of jihad. Whether or not we stand together in defending ourselves, our attackers do not make great distinctions between their jihads to destroy the "Great Satan" and the "Little Satan," as the mullahs call America and Israel.
Israel, now, has started fighting back. But the profound setback that the IDF is now dealing to Hizbullah and Hamas cannot be divorced from the wider need to successfully confront Iran and Syria, the rogue states that have been supporting these terrorist groups with impunity.
Iran, no doubt, expects the UN's diplomatic mill to grind slowly, and that the delicate P5 + 1 agreement to take this first critical step will unravel when it comes to imposing stiff sanctions. Already, Russia insists that the military option must not be on the table, though such an option must obviously be held in reserve to bolster the leverage of lesser measures and in case those measures fail.
Iran also expects that the UN - as the EU, Russia, Greece, and Turkey already have with respect to Gaza or Lebanon - will formally accuse Israel of using "excessive force."
The international community cannot expect Iran to take its brinkmanship seriously when, at the same moment it threatens sanctions, it refuses to clearly take Israel's side against Iran's blatant act of proxy aggression. We cannot even say we have reached the end of the beginning before free nations show something of the solidarity and clarity of purpose that the jihadis - in Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and al-Qaida - show against us.
And the UN calls for Israel to be condemned.
Thank goodness for W.
I think this is incorrect. The West knows who the enemy is. However, we have tied own hands behind our backs via political correctness which has stopped us from saying so.
Well, some of us at least. Most of the people on this site are comfortable saying "We are at war with Islamofacism"
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
The truth is that there is a GREAT DEAL OF FEAR in the west of naming the enemy because of fears that if the west even mentions the word Isalmofacists, then the whole hornets nest which is called Islam, all 1.3 billion will erupt in the flames of a massive war or jihad.
Actually, the President has called the enemy "isalmofacists" and "radical islam." Unfortunately, I only recall one speech in which he used those terms.
If that is really true then we have already lost this war. You cannot defeat an enemy you are afraid to name.
Are you referring to He-Who-Can-Not-Be-Caricatured-Disparaged-Insulted-Slighted-Disrespected-Or Even-Looked-At-Askance?
AKA the rock (and bomb) tossing band, Mad Mo & The Camel Humpers, with their backup group, The Burka Babes?
You might want to check out a parallel situation:
http://insidestraight.typepad.com/the_inside_straight/2006/07/india_demands_p.html
Iran is fighting wars of indirection.
Indirection in Gaza, indirection in Baghdad, indirection in the bekaa valley.
That is why the west has got to stop living in fear, because it will feed into the Islamofacists hands.
Even President Bush is walking on eggshells when the truth must be told.
Most important, in the Security Council. At this point, Iran seems to be doing OK.
Very similar. India won't get much publicity here though, and the US won't do a thing.
There, fixed it for you.
Right you are.
Too much walking on eggshells and not enough truth telling IMHO.
You got that right. Are you on "The List"?
Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
I need to be on your list,....please.
At some point, IMO, human nature will take over and a sudden realization happens. A bunch of people will die, but sooner or later, we fight or we die.
As for me and mine, we stand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.