Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Civilized world's biggest danger ever: itself (Mort Kondracke)
Los Angeles Newspaper Group ^ | 08/08/06

Posted on 08/08/2006 12:22:37 PM PDT by presidio9

TWENTY years ago, during the Reagan administration, I encountered a young producer at National Public Radio who said she and her husband had decided not to have children because they were convinced they'd die in a nuclear war.

Immediately, I told her, "Please, have children. There's not going to be a nuclear war."

I have no idea what she did.

Today, I might give the same advice, but not so swiftly. Children born into the 21st century face a far more perilous future than those in the 20th century - partly because adults now seem to lack the courage and wisdom to protect them.

After allowing the Nazis and Japanese to overrun Europe and much of Asia, the civilized world, led by the United States, fought for five years and lost 16 million soldiers (including 407,000 Americans) to conquer the enemy.

Determined to avoid such a catastrophe again, civilization united to resist global com-

munism, and it spent a vast treasure to do so for 45 years. In the process, the United States lost 54,000 lives in Korea and 58,000 in Vietnam.

Faced now with a menace from radical Islam, it's not at all clear that the civilized world has the will to fight.

The United States has suffered fewer than 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and already 55 percent of the population wants to withdraw immediately or within a year - regardless of whether the country is stable. Only 41percent, according to the latest Gallup Poll, are willing to keep troops until the job is done or add more.

It's true, Iraq is a complicated case. It's not certain that Saddam Hussein's regime was part of the war on terrorism when the United States invaded in 2003. He certainly was no Islamic fundamentalist, and his ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous, at best.

Moreover, the Bush administration's handling of the war is open to sharp criticism.

We didn't commit enough troops to pacify the country and secure ammunition sites, and we let a savage insurgency arise.

On the other hand, there can be no question that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terrorism. And a defeat there would energize Islamic radicals the world over.

Every time jihadists have won a victory - in Lebanon in 1983, Afghanistan in 1989, Somalia in 1993, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000, and the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 - it has energized the movement more, especially when the civilized world's response has been weak.

A U.S.-led coalition successfully evicted Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and has disrupted its networks, but the jihadist movement has shown resilience, tenacity and reach.

In fact, a reasonable assessment - and this is a dire portent - would be that the forces of darkness are

ascendant and those of civilization are in retreat.

The current struggle in the Middle East is a case in point. Israel had withdrawn from Gaza and southern Lebanon, yet its reward was to be attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, Islamic radical groups bent on Israel's destruction.

Israel decided that it would eliminate the Hezbollah threat on its northern border to the extent possible, but except for President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, most of the world's leaders publicly have turned against Israel, even if its action is serving their interests.

The Arab League,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aware that Hezbollah is an instrument of Iran's radical Shiite regime, at first condemned its attack on Israel. Then, as Al-Jazeera broadcast nonstop pictures of civilians killed in Lebanon, Arabs began urging a ceasefire.

The same is true in much of Europe. Worse, France's foreign minister, visiting Beirut, said, "In the region there is, of course, a country such as Iran - a great country ... which plays a stabilizing role in the region."

A nuclear-armed Iran and a nuclear-armed North Korea represent the most profound threats of all in the 21st century. And those could be exceeded if Islamic militants gained control of nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Iran's elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that Israel "should be wiped off the face of the Earth" and has stated that "a world without America" is "attainable and surely can be achieved." At the United Nations, he announced that his divine purpose was to prepare the way for the return of the 12th Imam - Shia Islam's vision of the end of the world.

The civilized world needs to counter the menace of Iran and radical Islam much as it did the Axis powers in World WarII and communism during the Cold War.

But it isn't doing so now.

Israel is doing its part by seeking to administer a decisive defeat to Iran's agent, Hezbollah, but the world needs to follow up by inserting a robust, willing-to-fight occupation force into southern Lebanon. It's not clear that the will exists.

The U.N. Security Council is obligated to authorize economic sanctions against Iran in response to its illicit nuclear program, but it's unlikely that the sanctions will be serious.

No one knows for certain how close Iran is to having a nuclear weapon - some experts say a year, some say five - but there's a danger that in a short time, it will have the know-how to build one, making actual nuclearization all but inevitable.

Some conservatives advocate early air strikes on Iran's nuclear installations - by Israel, if not the United States - while liberals hope internal stresses will topple the Islamic regime before it presents a nuclear danger.

There is a middle ground, if it can be pulled off: sanctions so stiff, such as a gasoline embargo that threatens to shut down the Iranian economy, that Iran reverses its nuclear course.

The only way for Bush to sustain that course is with a warning to the civilized world: "I will not leave office with Iran on its way to nuclear weapons. It's tough sanctions or ..."

There's a debate under way whether the West-versus-Jihad conflict deserves to be dubbed World War III. Regardless of whether we name it so, we did have our Pearl Harbor on Sept. 11, 2001, and we need to act as if we are at war.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clashofcivilizations; coldwar; crushislam; geopolitics; gwot; islam; kondracke; muslims; trop; wot; wwii; wwiii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 08/08/2006 12:22:38 PM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Dear Mort,

My generation would like to thank you and yours for your complete failure to turn over to us a better world.

This is you and your generations problem. Fix it before you go.


2 posted on 08/08/2006 12:24:43 PM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Foreign enemies will not defeat us; domestic enemies will.


3 posted on 08/08/2006 12:25:26 PM PDT by My2Cents (A pirate's life for me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Words rarely heard from a liberal (though Mort sometimes is much more moderate and clear headed than the typical dim Dem).


4 posted on 08/08/2006 12:28:37 PM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Ummmmmmmm, have lots of children, teach them to respect authority, and return THIS country to Constitutionaly limits. If enough people get behind that idea, the future is bright.


5 posted on 08/08/2006 12:30:26 PM PDT by jeremiah (How much did we get for that rope?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

No matter how wrongheaded Mort's views on domestic policies are, he certainly seems to have his head screwed on straight when it comes to foreign affairs.


6 posted on 08/08/2006 12:30:56 PM PDT by Mark-in-Kentucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The greater the threat to our existence the more children we must have.


7 posted on 08/08/2006 12:35:08 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Your faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Dear Mort, As much as I love children, it is precisely because I love children, that I would never have encouraged an idiot producer from National Public Radio who believed we were "on the eve of destruction" (probably because she believed Ronaldus Wilsonius Maximus Reaganus was going to get us into a nuclear war) to have children. Children deserve both a sane mother and a sane father. It sounds to me as if that producer's children would have been deprived of their birthright. Michael T. Archangel
8 posted on 08/08/2006 12:35:10 PM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The greatest impediment to world peace is the UN...


9 posted on 08/08/2006 12:36:21 PM PDT by Edgerunner (The WOT will not be won without Iran and Syria going down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Edgerunner

The absolute worst enemy of the American people is the Internal Revenu Service. They will take everything of value away from you and push you into slavery before any other outside influence affects you.


10 posted on 08/08/2006 12:39:24 PM PDT by Concho (IRS--Americas real terrorist organization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mark-in-Kentucky

Perhaps.

However in this article, in this same article, he on one hand recognizes the threat that Islamic nations present to civilization, and on the other he feigns a lack of understanding of why we are in Iraq.


11 posted on 08/08/2006 12:39:45 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Concho

Revenu=Revenue


12 posted on 08/08/2006 12:39:52 PM PDT by Concho (IRS--Americas real terrorist organization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Michael Savage is a whackjob he is right on one count; Only a more savage America can survive.


13 posted on 08/08/2006 12:43:03 PM PDT by BadAndy ("Loud mouth internet Rambo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
TWENTY years ago, during the Reagan administration, I encountered a young producer at National Public Radio who said she and her husband had decided not to have children because they were convinced they'd die in a nuclear war.

I dunno .... maybe people that stupid shouldn't have children.....

14 posted on 08/08/2006 12:43:51 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy

Michael Savage is our Mark Morford.


15 posted on 08/08/2006 12:45:48 PM PDT by presidio9 (“The term ‘civilians’ does not exist in Islamic religious law.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
It's true, Iraq is a complicated case. It's not certain that Saddam Hussein's regime was part of the war on terrorism when the United States invaded in 2003. He certainly was no Islamic fundamentalist, and his ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous, at best.

Why is it a liberal can never write an otherwise intelligent piece without showing their ignorance on certain things? Mort, just make what is a very compelling an important point without having to pay homage to left wing articles of faith like the lie that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, or that he had WMD. Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda were far from "tenuous." They were highly developed and at the very least establish a strong case that Saddam and AL Qaeda were plotting together against the US and likely regarding 9-11. Saddam's own intelligence files as shown by Freeper JVeritas are brimming with evidence Saddam and Al Qaeda worked together. Here's more: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335971/posts

16 posted on 08/08/2006 12:48:02 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting out of anger in November is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Mort speaks the truth. PC warfare, TROP speeches from the White House, and Liberal "enemies within" will be the reasons many more of us will die before we win.


17 posted on 08/08/2006 12:48:52 PM PDT by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Oil embargo? And what happens to any nation that doesn't go along with that? Aside from them getting cheaper petroleum.


18 posted on 08/08/2006 12:52:07 PM PDT by Graymatter (Don't like the PC, the lies, of the MSM? Don't watch TV.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The United State has the power to exterminate any collection of potential foes in hours or days. They are not stupid. They will not face us in a straight up military confrontation. They will rely on our domestic traitors in the Democrat Party and the Junk News Media to do their work for them.

Hypothetical Military Match Up. USA vrs the China/Iran/Syrian Axis. I will even add China as a potential Axis member.

Even if you multiply the CIA facts by a factor of the 5 on the absurd notion that they are successfully "hiding" their real military from us, the Iran/Syria Axis comes NO where near the US ALONE in Military power.

I am not even going to bother putting Israel, Japan, South Korea, India and the NATO countries on our side. The scale all ready tips so heavily to the US there is no reason to pile on.

This is JUST a comparison between the US and the Iran/Syrian Axis. For fun I will include Egypt and the Saudis as part of the Iran/Syrian Axis to show how absurd the "It's World War Three" babbling is.

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/united_states/united_states_military.html

USA.

Military branches: Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard; note - Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age; 17 years of age with written parental consent (2006)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 67,742,879 females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 54,609,050 females age 18-49: 54,696,706 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 2,143,873 females age 18-49: 2,036,201 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.06% (FY03 est.) (2005 est.)

***Snip***

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/iran/iran_military.html

Iran.

Iran Military - 2006

Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force (includes Air Defense); Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army); Law Enforcement Forces (2004)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 18,319,545 females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 15,665,725 females age 18-49: 15,005,597 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 862,056 females age 18-49: 808,044 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $4.3 billion (2003 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.3% (2003 est.)

****Snip*****

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/syria/syria_military.html

Syria

Military branches: Syrian Armed Forces: Syrian Arab Army, Syrian Arab Navy, Syrian Arab Air and Air Defense Force (includes Air Defense Command) (2005)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 30 months (18 months in the Syrian Arab Navy); women are not conscripted but may volunteer to serve (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 4,356,413 females age 18-49: 4,123,339 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 3,453,888 females age 18-49: 3,421,558 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 225,113 females age 18-49: 211,829 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $858 million (FY00 est.); note - based on official budget data that may understate actual spending

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 5.9% (FY00)

***Snip***** http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/egypt/egypt_military.html

Egypt

Military branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Command

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for conscript military service; three-year service obligation (2001)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 18,347,560 females age 18-49: 17,683,904 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 15,540,234 females age 18-49: 14,939,378 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 802,920 females age 18-49: 764,176 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $2.44 billion (2003)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.4% (2004)

******Snip****

http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/saudi_arabia/saudi_arabia_military.html

Saudi Arabia

Military branches: Land Forces (Army), Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, National Guard, Ministry of Interior Forces (paramilitary)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age (est.); no conscription (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 7,648,999 females age 18-49: 5,417,922 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 6,592,709 females age 18-49: 4,659,347 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 247,334 females age 18-49: 234,500 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $18 billion (2002)

****Snip******

href="http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/China/China_military.html">http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/China/China_military.html

China

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 10% (2002)

Military branches:

People's Liberation Army (PLA): Ground Forces, Navy (includes marines and naval aviation), Air Force (includes Airborne Forces), and II Artillery Corps (strategic missile force); People's Armed Police (PAP); Reserve and Militia Forces (2006)

Military service age and obligation: 18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers); 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 342,956,265 females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service: males age 18-49: 281,240,272 females age 18-49: 269,025,517 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually: males age 18-49: 13,186,433 females age 18-49: 12,298,149 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $81.48 billion (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.3% (2005 est.)


19 posted on 08/08/2006 12:52:53 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (A proportionate response would be the indiscriminate slaughter of Western journalists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
There is a middle ground, if it can be pulled off: sanctions so stiff, such as a gasoline embargo that threatens to shut down the Iranian economy, that Iran reverses its nuclear course. The only way for Bush to sustain that course is with a warning to the civilized world: "I will not leave office with Iran on its way to nuclear weapons. It's tough sanctions or ..."

This would be nice, but the people we'd need to level such and sustain such sanctions, France, Russia and China, will oppose us in the Security Council. They've made clear they won't go along with sanctions. So what then? I think such sanctions as Mort mentions may work, but we'll never be able to get Iran's useful idiots to go along. I hope when that happens, liberals will refrain from their usual blaming of Bush for that.

20 posted on 08/08/2006 12:53:05 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting out of anger in November is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson