Posted on 05/04/2007 11:44:14 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
It probably should not come as a surprise, since many of the same people did the same thing during the Vietnam War, but it certainly is a sad commentary on the state of political affairs when a presidential candidate stands before a cheering crowd and calls for the defeat of American forces in the midst of war.
Barack Obama told his admirers, "We are only one signature away from ending this war." And the people cheered. He is actually saying, "We are only one signature away from waving the white flag of surrender." Should the president accept the Democrats' demand for a date-certain schedule for withdrawing American troops, it would be a national declaration of defeat – and a national disgrace.
This disgraceful sentiment rests not on Obama's shoulders; he is simply playing to the crowd that already wants to surrender, regardless of the consequences. Sen. Harry Reid, the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has already declared, "The war is lost." Rep. John Murtha is trying to convince people that once American forces surrender, the natives will quit fighting, and all will be well in the world.
What happened to Ronald Reagan's policy during the Cold War: "... we win, they lose"? America's – indeed, the world's – war against terrorism is as real and as dangerous as the Cold War was a generation ago. If Democrats get their way, America's policy will be: "... they win, we lose."
Many of the people who line up behind the Democrats' position are so blinded by their hatred for George Bush, they cannot see dangers that would certainly arise in the aftermath of America's premature withdrawal from Iraq. Any sincere appraisal of the consequences of America's premature withdrawal would have to recognize that Iraq would fall, once again, under the control of forces determined to destroy America, whether Sunni, Shia or al-Qaida.
The new controlling power would likely be worse than Saddam Hussein, and definitely a greater threat to America and her allies. Iraq would become the new pre-war Afghanistan – the center for training terrorists. With Syria to the West and Iran to the East, the entire region could easily fall to the dominance of Islamic extremists.
Nearly 11 million Iraqis said they wanted a representative government based on the constitution they wrote. This is an undeniable display of the desires of the Iraqi people. It is the Islamic extremists who realize that their power cannot survive, nor their fantasies be realized, under this kind of representative government. But the desires of the people cannot survive, nor their dreams realized, under the scourge of Islamic extremism. American coalition forces are the only hope Iraqis have to achieve the freedom for which they so bravely voted.
George Bush may well deserve criticism for the way the war has been conducted; his vision and his goal, however, should be applauded. If – and it is a very big if – America can hold off the Islamaniacs long enough for the elected representatives to create a functioning government, civilization will move forward substantially. On the other hand, if the Democrats succeed in forcing the premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, the defeat will set back civilization and fan the flames of terrorism around the world.
Capture Bush's vision of an Iraq with an elected representative government – an American ally situated between Syria and Iran. A government that does not have to contend with daily attacks of suicide bombers and roadside bombs could devote its resources to upgrading the infrastructure that Saddam let deteriorate. Children could go to school. Merchants could go to their markets – with a reasonable expectation of returning home safely. People could begin to realize what it means to be free from Saddam's despotic rule and free from the maniacal militias that kill and maim for the benefit of America's TV audience.
Were such a government to take root in the Tigris-Euphrates valley (the cradle of civilization), the fruits of freedom would fall beyond the borders of Iraq. Young Muslims would have an alternative to the hopeless cycle of Islamic extremism. New freedoms could dispel the myth of martyrdom, as young Muslim boys discover that even a kiss on the cheek of a real live girl is far better than the promise of 72 virgins – after the explosion.
There is no way to calculate the benefits to the people and to the world of an elected representative government functioning in Iraq. Neither is there a way to calculate the pain, suffering, death and chaos of Iraq under the control of al-Qaida. Democrats don't seem to be concerned about either of these outcomes. Their only concern appears to be to see how fast America can surrender.
OH Goodie! Another example of Huang being Hwrong...again.
Go out and play in the Htraffic Johnnie.
Your preposterous “scenario” ain’t gonna happen,pal.
This is the second jackass comment that has been posted in your name today.
You need to make sure your computer hasn’t fallen into the hands of the juveniles.
Not quite. Ideological extremism and republican government are not mutually exclusive possibilities. The problem with the conservative mantra to this effect is that the libs know the truth; after all, they are themselves ideological extremists. Islam is not inimical to democracy, nor is "Islamofascism" as such. Political terrorism is a product of the democratic age; they are symbiotic. The libs aren't wrong when they say that going to war in Iraq was exactly what Bin Laden wanted, though they are wrong in their understanding of why men like Bin Laden wanted it. Bin Laden's ideological Islam could never have gained control in Iraq so long as Saddam was in power. Getting rid of him was important, and more than for reasons of national security -- it was honorable -- but we have to understand that political terrorists always want an opportunity to establish their ideology as a political reality. That can only be done in a free political system. That's why terrorism has usually been a leftist phenomena. Indeed, by our own ideological notions we would have to let them have a say. A democratic revolution in Islam would probably be to the benefit of those who wish to see a revived Muslim mega-state.
If we insist that democracy and free political institutions will change Islam the Muslims wont accept it. If we take the opposite approach, which now seems to be the conservative one, and try make a democracy with a Muslim character we will likely end up with either a shaky system or someone worse than Saddam. Someone popular, someone who believes that democracy can make Islam great again, and can convince the Muslims to follow.
You have to admire the genius of Bin Laden, he didn't lie to us by implying that this conflict was a clash of cultures. Rather his claim compelled us (both the Conservatives and the Libs) to try and deny it; which works better for him because then we will do everything to prove that Islam isn't the enemy and thus wont attack the real source of the problem.
The sad part is terrorism usually works. At least, I can't think of a previous terrorist campaign which didn't.
Are we to infer that you may not be in total agreement then?
I’m not in agreement with the way you went after the poster.. Critique of content is always fair game, but it’s not good form to make fun of the nmaes of folks who post articles.
I’m not in agreement with the way you went after the poster.. Critique of content is always fair game, but it’s not good form to make fun of the names of folks who post articles.
Somehow in your self-importance, you may want to consider that your little recitation of personal disagreements about others demeanor simply just does not rise to the importance to justify bothering the flow of intelligent discourse.
I tweaked the author for using the subject in question to unfairly misrepresent an entire political way of thought by the use of moral equivalence...a decidedly cowardly and dishonest trick. He resorts to this tactic altogether too often.
Hey Bart, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is the “preposterous scenario” that “ain’t gonna happen”?
What “political way of thought”?
And JohnHuang is the poster, not the author.
To be truthful, I hadn't noticed any.
Wow. Another Ramirez keeper....
What bin-Laden knew, after 9-11, is that we would come to Afghanistan, where the mujahideen would surely expel the Great Satan as they had the Russians. Mogadishu was the model as to what was expected of the Americans; the Taliban was not supposed to fall, and none of them expected the Iraq invasion. If it is true that bin-Laden WANTED three countries to be converted over to the enemy's side, then at least the rest of Araby sees the folly of such a desire by now.
They didn't expel the Russians, the Russians gave up because they couldn't win. You don't have to expel your enemy, you just have to not get expelled yourself. It's like our own history, do you think the die-hard American's would give up if Washington were destroyed? That's not even looking at the problem the right way. Afghanistan was perfect as a base for an ideological movement because there's nothing there worth defending.
Taliban was not supposed to fall, and none of them expected the Iraq invasion.
Perhaps not fall as it did, but they certainly counted on the western world interfering in other Muslim countries. That was their whole objective.
If it is true that bin-Laden WANTED three countries to be converted over to the enemy's side, then at least the rest of Araby sees the folly of such a desire by now.
It doesn't matter what the Arab world thinks of Bin Laden's success. He knows he could not defeat the United States militarily or economically. What he can do is get America to act in the interest of ideological Islam. The successful spread of democracy to Islam will be followed by a United States of Islamia and the genocide of the Jews. Bin Laden wants both and either we will give it to him, or waist our strength trying. Either way it's win win for radical Islam.
Bin-Laden and Zawahiri live in a cave, the Taliban has fallen, Saddam and his sons are dead, Pakistan is tight-rope walking, the Saudis are positioning against Iran, and the only true civil war is within al-Qaida in Iraq and Palestine.
The Great Satan is now perched in Mesopotamia, this time willing to stand and die to exact the consequence of Democracy where the Arab "strong horse" used to reside. Meanwhile, five years have gone by without a strike on the Great Satan's homeland. Perhaps the jihad is heeding the call for restraint from the Arab Street, what with all this "success" brought their way by the 9-11 attack.
An attack on Israel will not be a win-win for Iran, or Islam. There are enough nukes on Israeli subs to eliminate Persia in a retaliatory strike. A trade of Iran for Israel will not be perceived to be a win for anyone.
Yeah, and Bin Laden at least was expecting to, otherwise they have had the escape routs, caves and supplies ready. His disappearance required logistics that had to have been in place during the 9-11 attacks. If he was expecting to fight toe to toe with the "Great Satan" he would have and no doubt died in the process. That was never his plan. That's never the plan of a terrorist group. You have to understand that terrorism achieves its aims more obliquely. Most terrorism is committed in the name OF democracy against what are preconceived to be repressive systems like the British in Ireland, the Russian Czars, the French in Algeria, The former West Germans and colonial and apartheid regimes around the world.
The Great Satan is now perched in Mesopotamia, this time willing to stand and die to exact the consequence of Democracy where the Arab "strong horse" used to reside.
Cold Leviathan vs horned Behemoth arisen from the desert? Interesting. You realize that one cannot defeat the other, but that may not matter because, paradoxically, in Arab mythology one will ride the other.
BTW we also said we would "hound Mexico for 2000 years" to make them a free democratic society. It's all ideological nonsense that sounds good only on paper (and not even there). For that matter we didn't even have the patience to do it for ourselves; as soon as Federal troops left the south the Bourbon Democrats came right back into power and the lynchings began.
Meanwhile, five years have gone by without a strike on the Great Satan's homeland. Perhaps the jihad is heeding the call for restraint from the Arab Street, what with all this "success" brought their way by the 9-11 attack.
They don't need to strike again, the first one worked. You don't actually think that terrorist like Bin Laden believe they can win via direct efforts do you? That's not even the point of Terrorism. The attacks on 9-11 were never meant to ruin us economically, nor the 3000 some deaths meant to bleed us. Their designed to get a reaction.
They went to a lot of effort to pull that attack off, you have to ask yourself what were their real aims?
A trade of Iran for Israel will not be perceived to be a win for anyone.
Yeah it would, Iran is a heterodox nation from Bin Laden's perspective. Its loss is also a win win, if it takes out Israel. Being Shia Iran will no doubt be excluded from Sunni hegemony anyway. Besides which you still haven't grasped the true diabolism of their mentality, any three Muslim countries sacrificed to get Israel would be a victory in the eyes of these people.
Let me put it this way, if our aims are to fundamentally change the political structure of the Islamic countries by creating a democratic system within an Islamic context (which we would need tot do to make democracy work in most Muslim countries) that is basically what Bin Laden wanted. If we attempt to create a more American, "whiggish," democratic system we will fail because any political system which does not cater to the cultural realities of Islam will be in conflict with it as a rival faith. Which do you think will win in that fight?
But, creating a democratic system which is informed by Islamic doctrine, which as I said seems to be the strategy for making the democratic revolution there lasting and popular, it would mean the likely resurrection of a democratic caliphate with a strong sense of "manifest destiny." Remember that Bin Laden believes he is, or will be, popular, thus democracy isn't his enemy as such. His enemy is "secular democracy," which would never take in the Islamic world and even if we manage to set it up in Iraq as a springboard for democratic revolutions in the rest of the Middle East, those secondary revolution will have to be of a religious flavor.
Perhaps Democracy in Iraq is impossible, as you assert, but why is it that some of the same ones who once declared a joint effort between Iraq and al-Qaida was impossible because Iraq was SECULAR, now say Democracy is impossible because its people are suddenly TOO ISLAMIC?
You miss read me, I never meant to imply that democracy couldn't work in Iraq, or in Islam in general. But, the American notion of democracy, which is a whiggish one, could not work in an Islamic framework without serious changes to that framework. Iraq's government was secular true; it was a party government -- technically Iraq already had a "democratic" revolution -- but the reason the Baathist party ruled they way it did (i.e. show democracy) was because any people with a strong philosophical ethos will seek a consistent morality in government. Strong men, the "terrible simplificators," and the ideological parties they represent promise such government to get in power, but, in order to maintain that power they need to establish totalitarian party systems. You can see this in almost every political dictatorship.
The Iraqis, because they've already gone through the first part, might, like Germany, and other countries that have gone through similar systems, be able to accept a more secular democracy of the American (amoral) form.
But, the hitch is that the whole reason for going to Iraq was to establish a base for the spread of democracy to other Muslim nations. In that sense Iraq, because of it's history, was perfect. It follows a pattern which most Americans are unaware of. Because America always had a tradition of a complete split between religious ethos and political ethos our democracy never concerned itself with the moral realities of man; except on those occasions when democracy itself was made a blasphemous idol of a political pseudo-religion. That last change, the one to democratizm as a faith, was the only way democracy could work in cultures which needed a positively ethical society. Hence the deification of the "chosen people," (the Volk), or the "chosen class" (the proletariat) in those nations which did not have a clear split of the political and religious ethos in their culture. consider for example that the Baathists wanted to "resurrect" Arab greatness through secular democracy, the irony of course is that, like every party trying to gain power in a morally (moral in the general sense of a belief in Good and Evil) sensitive culture the party will have to become an ethically positive one. I.e. it must have a "mystical mission" like the Nazis or the Bolsheviks.
So Iraq might be able to accept an amoral form of democracy but that would work in Bin Laden's favor too, if it develops along the lines I outlined in the previous paragraph. Secular America's (and to a lesser extent Britain's) influence on the continental revolution of 1789, 1848 and 1917 would then be paralleled by Iraq's on her neighbors. In fact it will be made worse since we are deliberately trying to mold democracy into something which will fit in an Islamic framework to start with, essentially doing Bin Laden's work for him.
Like every terrorist before him Bin Laden's aims have always been to get us to do his work for him be reacting in some way. That's what terrorists always do whether they are anarchist, red-republicans, our religious fanatics. Take for example the taking of hostages for demanding the release of political prisoners. That is a well known stratagem of terrorism which we are all familiar with. It works as a win win for terrorists because of the nature of our democratic world. Either 1: government relents and the prisoners are released; that's a win. Or 2; government doesn't release prisoners, hostages are murdered, and government gets the blame; also a win from a terrorists perspective. And finally 3; government reacts violently, hostages are still probably killed and best of all, the people react to "government oppression." When a terrorist takes Hostages he's more hoping for the 2nd or 3rd option than anything. This is what I mean when I say they archive their aims "obliquely."
In reality your modern terrorist is your most democratic of all warriors. In his eyes all are potential targets, all are equal. He's not anti-democratic, all his power comes from the people. Terrorism would never work against Saddam's government because it was already as repressive as it could be (note: this should not be construed as a defense of Saddam's government), however it will work in the new Iraq. The Iraqi government will be forced to react, it will fail like all governments do at one point or another, it will be blamed (along with America seen as its ultimate suzerain) and western democracy will then be democratically discredited and replaced by a more radical system.
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.