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

Skip to comments.

Is the West Too Civilized?
CNSNews.com ^ | July 22, 2003 | Daniel Pipes

Posted on 07/22/2003 7:21:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

"Since the events of 9/11," observes Lee Harris, America's reigning philosopher of 9/11, "the policy debate in the United States has been primarily focused on a set of problems -- radical Islam and the War on Terrorism, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

We sense that these three problems are related, Harris notes in an article at TechCentralStation.com, but we can't quite figure out how. He proposes a subtle link between these seemingly disparate issues -- and it's not specifically their common Muslim identity. Rather, it has to do with their unearned power.

"All previous threats in the history of mankind have had one element in common. They were posed by historical groups that had created the weapons -- both physical and cultural -- that they used to threaten their enemies." States achieved their military power through their own labor and sacrifice, developing their own economies, organizing their societies, training their own troops, and building their own arsenals.

But the same cannot be said of the threats emanating from the Muslim world. Al-Qaeda destroys airplanes and buildings that it itself could not possibly build. The Palestinian Authority has failed in every field of endeavor except killing Israelis. Saddam Hussein's Iraq grew dangerous thanks to money showered on it by the West to purchase petroleum Iraqis themselves had neither located nor extracted.

How, despite their general incompetence, has this trio managed to guide the course of events as if they were Powers in the traditional sense?

The cause of this anomaly, Harris replies, is that the West plays by a strict set of rules while permitting Al-Qaeda, the Palestinians, and Saddam Hussein to play without rules. We restrain ourselves according to the standards of civilized conduct as refined over the centuries; they engage in maximal ruthlessness.

Had the United States retaliated in kind for 9/11, Harris tells me, the Islamic holy places would have been destroyed. Had Israelis followed the Arafat model of murderousness, the West Bank and Gaza would now be devoid of Palestinians. Had the West done toward Iraq as Iraq did toward Kuwait, the Iraqi polity would long ago have been annexed and its oil resources confiscated.

While morally commendable, Harris argues, the West's not responding to Muslim ruthlessness with like ruthlessness carries a high and rising price. It allows Muslim political extremists of various stripes to fantasize that they earned their power, when in fact that power derives entirely from the West's arch-civilized restraint.

This confusion prompts Muslim extremists to indulge in the error that their successes betoken a superior virtue, or even God's support. Conversely, they perceive the West''s restraint as a sign of its decadence. Such fantasies, Harris contends, feed on themselves, leading to ever-more demented and dangerous behavior.

Westerners worry about the security of electricity grids, computer bugs, and water reservoirs; can a nuclear attack on a Western metropolis be that remote? Western restraint, in other words, insulates its enemies from the deserved consequences of their actions, and so unintentionally encourages their bad behavior.

For the West to reverse this process requires much rougher means than it prefers to use. Harris, author of a big-think book on this general subject coming out from the Free Press in early 2004, contends that Old Europe and most analysts have failed to fathom the imperative for a change. The Bush administration, however, has figured it out and in several ways (all of which surfaced during the Iraq campaign) has begun implementing an unapologetic and momentous break with past restraints:

- Preempt: Knock out fantasist leaders (the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat) before they can do more damage.

- Rehabilitate: Dismantle their polities, then reconstruct these along civilized lines.

- Impose a double standard: Act on the premise that the U.S. government alone "is permitted to use force against other agents who are not permitted to use force."

In brief, until those Harris calls "Islamic fantasists" play by the rules, Washington must be prepared to act like them, without rules.

This appeal for America to act less civilized will offend some; but it does offer a convincing explanation for the inner logic of America''s tough new foreign policy.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: danielpipes; september12era; thewest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last

1 posted on 07/22/2003 7:21:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
It is hard to be objective when you're up to your ass in alligators.
2 posted on 07/22/2003 7:27:28 AM PDT by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The logical end of Herr Pipes recommendation, I guess, is to respond to the Islamofascists as fascists?

3 posted on 07/22/2003 7:29:39 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
When you are dealing with the type threat we face rules need to go in the crapper. We have gone a step or two in the proper direction but we have a way to go. As GWB said in the beginning, "This will take time".. Good find
4 posted on 07/22/2003 7:30:12 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (!!!!!!! sdrawkcab si enilgat ym ,em pleh esaelP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Nietzsche wrote in his Zur Genealogie der Moral that the ultimate, "sublime" example of a civilized society is one which does not punish criminals in any way.

As its power increases, a community ceases to take the individual's transgressions so seriously, because they can no longer be considered as dangerous and destructive to the whole as they were formerly: the malefactor is no longer "set beyond the pale of peace" and thrust out; universal anger may not be vented upon him as unrestrainedly as before—on the contrary, the whole from now on carefully defends the malefactor against this anger, especially that of those he has directly harmed, and takes him under its protection.

A compromise with the anger of those directly injured by the criminal; an effort to localize the affair and to prevent it from causing any further, let alone a general, disturbance; attempts to discover equivalents and to settle the whole matter (compositio); above all, the increasingly definite will to treat every crime as in some sense dischargeable, and thus at least to a certain extent to isolate the criminal and his deed from one another—these traits become more and more clearly visible as the penal law evolves.

As the power and self-confidence of a community increase, the penal law always becomes more moderate; every weakening or imperiling of the former brings with it a restoration of the harsher forms of the latter. The "creditor" always becomes more humane to the extent that he has grown richer; finally, how much injury he can endure without suffering from it becomes the actual measure of his wealth.

It is not unthinkable that a society might attain such a consciousness of power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury possible to it—letting those who harm it go unpunished. "What are my parasites to me?" it might say. "May they live and prosper: I am strong enough for that!"

5 posted on 07/22/2003 7:33:27 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
when you fight in the mud...you have got to get dirty
6 posted on 07/22/2003 7:46:43 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
You are correct, as well the author od the cited piece. Our response should be tailored to the enemy we are facing.
Marquis of Queensbury Rules will get you a quick grave in a battle with a street fighter and the Islamofascists are street fighters. The only way we can defeat them is by overppowering them totally, with their own tactics if ncessary, and I beleive at this point, its necessary.

Western Civlization is at war with Fundmantalist Islam.
7 posted on 07/22/2003 8:01:58 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Is the West Too Civilized?

Yes.

8 posted on 07/22/2003 8:09:37 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (>>>>>Liberals Suk. Liberalism Sukz.<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Victor Davis Hanson often points out that America is slow to anger, but when provoked to war, we kick major ass. The key campaign in the American Civil War was Sherman's march through the South. He "fought dirty" and made Georgia howl. It brought the war to an end. In WWII we fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some folks are appalled by that -- but it brought the war to an end.

I agree with Pipes. If we want Terrorism to end, we've got to take the barbarians down. Hard. Fast. Repeat as necessary. No rules.

9 posted on 07/22/2003 8:15:17 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (France delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Where's Blackjack Pershing when you need him! The only way to truly fight these animals is to go to their lair, root them out, and kill them all. Don't arrest them, don't convert them, simply kill them all, with extreme prejudice. They'd do it to us tomorrow if they had the change.
10 posted on 07/22/2003 8:19:20 AM PDT by WestPacSailor (Buy a gun, learn to use it, get a concealed carry permit, and exercise your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Amen Brother! Gotta take it to them in terms they understand. The only thing they understand is a first-class, up close and personal a$$ whoopin'!
11 posted on 07/22/2003 8:21:04 AM PDT by WestPacSailor (Buy a gun, learn to use it, get a concealed carry permit, and exercise your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Of course the West is too civilized. Too many men have been sissified by feminism and PC.

They can be sissies if they want, just let real men take care of the exernal threats and GET OUT OF OUR WAY.

12 posted on 07/22/2003 8:26:36 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"Western Civlization is at war with Fundmantalist Islam"

Which may be closer to being a radical political regime than a "religion". How do we define and deal with regimes that hide behind a freedom that we ourselves guard with jealousy? I thought GWB was pretty clear, but obviously, some in the world don't or cannot hear clearly and are quick to critisize those who were attacked and not the attackers. If other westernized nations cannot/will not help, then they should just be quiet. Nothing worse than a back seat driver.

13 posted on 07/22/2003 8:27:30 AM PDT by two23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Had the United States retaliated in kind for 9/11, Harris tells me, the Islamic holy places would have been destroyed. Had Israelis followed the Arafat model of murderousness, the West Bank and Gaza would now be devoid of Palestinians. Had the West done toward Iraq as Iraq did toward Kuwait, the Iraqi polity would long ago have been annexed and its oil resources confiscated.

I'd have supported all of these responses 100%. I have no interest in losing from the "high moral ground," and going under muttering, "Well, at least we played nice." I want to win because this is no game, this is our lives.

14 posted on 07/22/2003 8:31:26 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
"Is the West Too Civilized?"

This is a relative condition.

Not that we are too civilized, but that there are elements of the Mid-East that are NOT civilized enough,....yet.
15 posted on 07/22/2003 8:33:31 AM PDT by spoiler2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
Instead of doing any of this stuff (which we oughta have done) we're showering the regimes which supply the terrorists with money -- the $3 billion we gave to the Pakiregime for instance or the billions we giveSaudi when we buy their oil.
16 posted on 07/22/2003 8:39:51 AM PDT by Cronos (Mixing Islam with sanity results in serious side effects. Consult your Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Some good points in this.

It sure looks like we need to obliterate Damascus. Though it sounds in The Bible like God may have that scheduled at some very momentous time. Who knows.

And North Korea has been increasingly begging to be squashed. Given the dreams and visions of so many about the puppet masters using NK for starting WWIII's invasion of our shores with nukes, it doesn't seem to me that we should wait much longer. But then, we are spread so thin.

Certainly time for plenty of ongoing prayer!

Thanks.
17 posted on 07/22/2003 8:41:15 AM PDT by Quix (PLEASE SHARE THE TRUTH RE BILLDO AND SHRILLERY FAR AND WIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
My alternate response is . . .

Civilized?

With Billdo and Shrillery Hellery Antoinette de Fosterizer de Christmas-tree-vaginas-N-penises de Sade . . . 'leading' our 'fair' land . . .

And far too soon roaming gangs and others pillaging, raping, destroying, maiming . . .

I wouldn't crow too much about our being toooo civilized tooo loudly.

Concerted efforts have been afoot for at least 50 years to shred and fracture our culture/society from within. The fruit of such has not really begun to be really harvested yet. But it will be. The puppet masters and stooges have been very skillful and very thorough.
18 posted on 07/22/2003 8:46:03 AM PDT by Quix (PLEASE SHARE THE TRUTH RE BILLDO AND SHRILLERY FAR AND WIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady
”I'd have supported all of these responses 100%. I have no interest in losing from the "high moral ground,"

I agree with you but I’m afraid not everyone would share our viewpoint and it would be unlikely that W would get a second term. The Bush administration realized (correctly) after 9/11 that we are at war with Islam (not just radical Islam) but that it would be political suicide to come out and say it. The result is that we need a pretense for action and I think that’s why Iraq was the next one on the list (1441 was grounds enough). I think Iran will wait until after the 2004 elections and sometimes think one of the reasons that W seems to be leaning a little to close to center is that he knows his core constituency is secure and wants to make sure that he picks up enough of the center left for a decent win. I’m guessing that he is swaying more of these than he is losing independents.

I hope I am right on this and that after next November the gloves come off.

19 posted on 07/22/2003 8:47:17 AM PDT by SouthParkRepublican (I am fascinated that cows can turn grass into meat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SouthParkRepublican
I hope I am right on this and that after next November the gloves come off.

I hope so too. Oh, how I hope. OH, how I hope!

20 posted on 07/22/2003 8:52:20 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
.......respond to the Islamofascists as fascists?......

Is it Fascism to value ones life and to protect and defend it?

I suggest you check your original premises.

21 posted on 07/22/2003 9:20:09 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (>>>>>Liberals Suk. Liberalism Sukz.<<<<<)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The obvious long-term counter to US power, is to infiltrate and take over, as the Islamists are doing in Europe. Simply immigrate in, legally or illegally, and have ten or more kids per Muslim woman. Within one generation, Muslims could be a larger percentage of the electorate than Blacks, and far more militant. Imagine the response in the US if Bush sent in Marines to depose Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and re-install white government. It would be unthinkable -- the cities would be burning by evening. Action against any Muslim polity would be similarly unthinkable once Islamists were 10% or more of our population

The only counter to that would be for the non-Muslim US population to make Islamists feel unwelcome. Very Unwelcome. This is something that the web of civil-rights and hate-crime laws would tend to stifle

22 posted on 07/22/2003 10:05:58 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === will work for food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
As an American conservative, I believe in a decentralized government and a well-armed citizenry as the best defense. Pipes believes in blowing up temples and what not half-a-world-away.

I believe 'America' should revert to her conservative principals; Pipes is advocating we 'become more like them.'

You are right; he is not a fascist, he is an idiot.
23 posted on 07/22/2003 10:07:49 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
the best defense

... is good offense.

24 posted on 07/22/2003 11:17:55 AM PDT by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
As an American conservative, I believe in a decentralized government and a well-armed citizenry as the best defense.

Amen! Unfortunately, breaking it down into such simplistic terms guarantees that Beltway conservatives won't understand it.

25 posted on 07/22/2003 12:48:49 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
There are times when it is necessary to behave like a barbarian in order to preserve your civilization.
26 posted on 07/22/2003 1:00:27 PM PDT by moni kerr (Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnGalt
Pipes isn't just an idiot, he's a dialectic idiot. The logic to his solution is that A becomes not-A. How very Hegellian. This should offend any thinking conservative. I wonder why this sort of policy and tactics failed the Russians in Afghanistan if it is such an obviously useful course of action? One doesn't fight immorality by matching it with immoral behavior. Self-defense is moral and unambiguous; pre-emption isn't. This is true in the individual case, as well as when our assigned servants organize collective defense. No doubt Potemkin-conservatives such as Pipes have no problem with centralized authority and disarming free-agents for the security of the state.

One who can diagnose the symptoms correctly but completely screw up the cure is known in other professions as a quack.

28 posted on 07/22/2003 1:24:19 PM PDT by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
It's simply a hard though paradoxical truth. Violence, no matter how well refined or choreographed is far from civilized behavior. It is primal and instinctual. But it is often necessary to cultivate such behavior to preserve what you have.


29 posted on 07/23/2003 12:48:32 AM PDT by moni kerr (Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LibTeeth
Daniel Pipes isn't " an idiot ";dialectic nor otherwise.

Not all Muslims are Islamacists, though all Islamacists are Muslims.

Every thinking Conservative should be OFFENDED by you and others of your ilk, who have no comprehension nor knowledge, yet feel it incumbent to spew irrational, ridiculuous, preposterous, and ill informed garbage on FR. The pre-emptive strike on Iraq was far from " immoral ".

Pipes is far from being anything similar to Potempkin and I seriously doubt that you even understand the implications of what you so emotionally and unthinkingly wrote.

The " ARAB STREET ", as well as the putative leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even N. Korea see the USA quite differently than they did prior to the Afghanistan and Iraq " wars ". Even France, Germany, and little Belgum have backed off somewhat, with their stupid rhetoric.

Russia ? Why didn't you throw in England whilst you were at it, when talking about Afghanistan's history ? Both failed there; America hasn't.

30 posted on 07/23/2003 12:59:15 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
You haven't a clue; none at all. Neither do you even know what Pipes has advocated, apparently.

You and your islolationist friends, who also see America's past through distorted lenzes, should, instead, look at facts, rather than through unfactual smoke & mirrors of your own daydreams.

31 posted on 07/23/2003 1:02:08 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Anyone who uses 'fantasist' in an alleged serious foreign policy article is both an idiot and a dialectical idiot at that.

32 posted on 07/23/2003 6:00:10 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: moni kerr
Protecting ones property, family and friends is instinctual but has nothing to do with troop tactics half a world away. In order to make that connection you would have to use the abstractions generally reserved for the left in order to draw a parallel.

Seems the moderator thought I was over the top in my response; apologies if you were offended.
33 posted on 07/23/2003 6:05:28 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Yehuda; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
34 posted on 07/23/2003 8:12:06 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt; nopardons
Here is the article by Lee Harris referenced by Daniel Pipes: http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-031103A 

Read it, please.

If you have and still used the "idiot" reference in regards to Mr. Harris, there is nothing I can say that can convince you otherwise. For anybody who have not read the original article (btw, Mr. Pipes did a good job summarizing a part of this long multi-part article published back in March of 2003), I want to highlight again: Mr. Harris says that the current enemy is different from the traditional enemy. Instead of reality, the new enemy deals with fantasy. The reasonable enemy can be relied on to act within specific set of rules and can be, well, "reasoned" with. The new "fantasist" enemy, does not respond to reason. Traditional approach is counterproductive. If the West wants to win, it must change its approach and must bring the "fantasist" enemy back to reality.

The article was discussed three times here:

Our World-Historical Gamble
Posted by beckett
On 03/11/2003 11:31 PM EST with 106 comments


Tech Central Station ^ | March 11, 2003 | Lee Harris
1: THE PROBLEM Of the many words written for and against the coming war with Iraq, none has been more perceptive than Paul Johnson's observation in his essay "Leviathan to the Rescue" that such a war "has no precedent in history" and that "in terms of presidential power and national sovereignty, Mr. Bush is walking into unknown territory. By comparison, the Gulf War of the 1990's was a straightforward, conventional case of unprovoked aggression, like Germany's invasion of Belgium in 1914 and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor." The implications of this remark - like the implications of the war with...
 

Our World-Historical Gamble
Posted by ganeshpuri89
On 03/12/2003 12:15 AM EST with 7 comments

 

Our World-Historical Gamble
Posted by Risa
On 03/17/2003 12:37 AM EST with 10 comments

 


35 posted on 07/23/2003 8:51:34 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
I took the time to read the esteemed Mssr. Harris's orignal article yesterday, and lets be clear, I was calling Pipes and idiot in the original sense of the word.

The Apaches, the Huns, Tojos, VC...were all said to be like no enemy in history. Only the truly lazy buy the latest clap trap about the nature of the current enemy of the moment. The sad part are the lazy are the very people who conceded so many of their liberties to the state, in times of crises, they are only capable of thinking the state can save them.

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering said when it was all over, in his prison cell in Nuremberg in 1946:

"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship ... That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."


36 posted on 07/23/2003 9:07:03 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
The logical end of Herr Pipes recommendation, I guess, is to respond to the Islamofascists as fascists?

Did we defeat the nazis in World War II by responding as nazis?

37 posted on 07/23/2003 9:34:15 AM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
No, the Allies defeated Nazi Germany because the United State government could field an army with nearly unlimited machines of war and a capable, seasoned military leadership in the field.
38 posted on 07/23/2003 10:04:57 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
I just love that wonderful Goering quote. What does it prove? That any part of human existence and any human feeling can be manipulated? Of course it can. It was done since prehistoric times. Isn't why Shakespeare still current because he deals with the basic human feelings and tragedies? Does shameless manipulation renders everything false? I dare to disagree. If the fraise "I love you" was shamelessly used a couple of trillions times just to get laid, does it mean that it false every time? Think not. ... But I digress.

 I think that the threat to civilization from the current fanatical barbarism (called whatever: islamofasicm, militant islam, islamism, radical islam, pick one or none) is real regardless of how Goering and Co manipulated Germany in the last century. I think that this new enemy indeed has "unearned power" (as termed by Mr. Pipes) and is different kind of enemy that Nazi Germany, Militaristic Japan or Communist Soviet Union were or Communist China may be.

I also think that the West itself contributed to the rise of this enemy buy not holding it accountable for their actions and inadvertently supporting their fantasy that our goodness is a sign of weakness.

This enemy is also expansionist. So if we decide to fold and hide behind two oceans, it won't save us anyway. Did not Osama said in answer to the question: all right, so what America should do? - First convert to Islam.

39 posted on 07/23/2003 10:05:29 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
But isn't that dialectics? The onus is on the theorist to prove that the new enemy is different than all others, rather than begin with such an assumption.

"I also think that the West itself contributed to the rise of this enemy buy not holding it accountable for their actions and inadvertently supporting their fantasy that our goodness is a sign of weakness. "

Lets be clear the West contributed to the rise of the enemy in the sense that Western intelligence services employed radical Islam as a tool against Soviet expansion and failed to tie up loose ends after the war; they even tapped some the agents again to 'help' in Kosovo.

Its hard to take such abstract theorizing and world play seriously when American boys are in harms way, but I understand urbanites, like Mssr.Harris have little interest in those of us in fly-over country.


40 posted on 07/23/2003 10:12:58 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
the Allies defeated Nazi Germany because the United State government could field an army with nearly unlimited machines of war and a capable, seasoned military leadership in the field.

Sore-loser Southerners make the same claim about the Yankees (the boys in blue, not the guys in pinstripes).

41 posted on 07/23/2003 10:14:37 AM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; Yehuda; Nachum; adam_az; LarryM; American in Israel; ReligionofMassDestruction; ...
Ping.
42 posted on 07/23/2003 10:15:23 AM PDT by yonif
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; All
"Is the West Too Civilized?"

Obviously, the author hasn't been around DU lately...

43 posted on 07/23/2003 10:17:57 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
So might makes right, basically?

What political persuasion does that theory come from?

I am certain it's not American conservatism.
44 posted on 07/23/2003 10:18:16 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
45 posted on 07/23/2003 10:19:05 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Pipes certainly stated a very dialectic position; that sort of rationalization is normally the preserve of liberal/socialist/communist sorts of collectivists, although lately corporate management seems to be embracing the philosophy and putting it into practice as well.

I didn't compare Pipes to Potempkin the man, I compared him to the village. Naturally if you don't find his logic "un-conservative", the analogy wouldn't resonate with you.

I wasn't referring to our continued success in Afghanistan; I support the retaliatory effort there, that wasn't pre-emptive. Another name for pre-emptive is "prior restraint." Regarding a Christian culture and a Moslem culture, it's easy to see which one's morality approves of such tactics. Aside from the pragmatics of seeing Iraquis get their delayed justice, one concern I have over this precedent is how the policy will be applied in the future when the pendulum swings and a Demosocialist is elected.

I'll defer to your expertise what the consensus is on the "Arab Street", and hope a behavior change accompanies whatever shift in attitude you are sensing. Why should I care about the change of volume of the stupid rhetoric coming out of socialist Europe?

Pardon me if you think I offended you. I was discussing ideas and Pipes specifically, but I appreciate your emphatic defense of his prophetic article.

46 posted on 07/23/2003 10:28:22 AM PDT by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
He tried to prove it. You disagree. Its normal. Does not mean that he is an idiot if could not convince you.

Harms way: the Bush team and intellectuals supporting it came to conclusion that the price of inaction will be worse that the price of acting now. I don't remember anybody in-power saying that this is an easy situation with easy and painless solution. I don't think that they decided to act with disregard to lives of soldiers. Isn't it a part of W appeal that people believe he really cares?

47 posted on 07/23/2003 10:29:26 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Don't confuse a lack or will, resolve, and values with being "civilized" ...
48 posted on 07/23/2003 10:37:24 AM PDT by spodefly (This is my tagline. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Pipes did not try to prove anything; he was merely writing Harris's (whom Pipes alleges is a preeminent philosopher of our times) thoughts in paraphrased form.


49 posted on 07/23/2003 10:41:23 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Re:"Isn't it a part of W appeal that people believe he really cares?"

Absolutely. But remember, the liberals used the same argument to support Clinton. I'd hate to think that's a reason for turning a blind eye to policies-that if carried out by a democrat- one would otherwise be critical of. Sadly, not too many politicians on either side of the aisle look very good in the light of Constitutional, limited government.

50 posted on 07/23/2003 11:03:12 AM PDT by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-174 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