Why We Should Give A Damn

Commentary Magazine ^ | April 11, 2011 | by Peter Wehner

[Little Ray]

Yes, we should be callous to their suffering and their plight. They created most of their problems. They seem to be refusing to take responsibility or ownership of them. IF they won’t help themselves, we sure as hell shouldn’t be wasting time helping them.

[Retain Mike]

The African/ Oriental/ Asian allies we seek, or adversaries we hope to influence, need assurance of unflinching action along a continuum of covert and overt political and military operations, for moderates to become leaders and not victims. Moderate constituencies, which could include a majority of Muslims, envision their religion supporting primary allegiances to family, tribe, culture and ethnicity, but surrender to terrorist domination, when only submission can provide any degree of security. Without our steadfast support the individuals who would promote stable, representative governments are eliminated from the political scene through the murder of them and their extended families as was the case in Iraq.

The free world cannot compromise short of international victory in the Global War on Terror, because Wahhabi Jihadism focuses on objectives requiring no human or material remnant from current world systems. George Kennan advocated containment of Soviet power, because the country was sensitive to its material and cultural national heritage. In the Long Telegram, he also noted its ineffectiveness against the adventuristic, Gotterdammerung specters of a Hitlerite regime. In Wahhabi Jihadism we face the latter and must summon the political courage and military capabilities to risk victory in a long war, because we face maturing capabilities needing only benign or supportive national environments to accomplish incalculable miseries.

[knarf]

Where do you get this stuff ?

The first paragraph indicates there's nothing we can do because the ragheads are savages and the second seems to say that we should try anyway, because of someone's theory.

See ... I'm no scholar ... just a guy that knows enough English grammer to get himself into trouble.

[Retain Mike]

I think the key sentence in the first paragraph is: “Without our steadfast support the individuals who would promote stable, representative governments are eliminated from the political scene through the murder of them and their extended families as was the case in Iraq.”

True those who are most likely to win without our help are the religious or secular savages. However, there are constituencies such as those in Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia who push in the direction of representative government. The same people are most often anonymous and powerless in other Islamic countries.

George Kennan was the central architect of our policy of containment in regard to the Soviet Union. People make the error of saying the same policy can be applied to Muslim countries. Supposedly, we just need to have the patience to allow them to naturally evolve into peaceful states. I say we do not have a choice but to support the emergence of representative governments, because dominance by governments motivated by Wahhabi Jihadism plunge the world into a new Dark Age.

We might have lived in a safer world when the Soviet Union and its allies were ultimately controlled by MAD. Now weapons technologies and inventories, previously held within a few countries, can be found globally. Fifty-year-old technologies and stockpiles reside worldwide for weapons comparable to the Davy Crockett missile that fired from a jeep a 51-pound nuclear warhead yielding 0.02 kiloton, and Astor the torpedo carrying a Hiroshima size warhead. F.B.I. Director Mueller reports enough highly enriched uranium worldwide to arm thousands of nuclear weapons, and to fuel a seller’s market in the so-called atomic bazaar.

Chemical and biological agents emanate from dual-use facilities and cottage industries. The biological pathogens, that decimated Europe still reside one step away in our food chain ready for exploitation. Insecticides and pesticides provide the precursors for chemical weapons just as cough syrup does for methamphetamines. The entire chemical or biological weapons program of the Soviet Union can now be carried within a Ford Club Van.

Open societies provide excellent delivery means for chemical and biological agents where 2,000 to 20,000 people work and travel within closed HVAC systems. The complex fresh water and food distribution systems found in first world countries invite lethal chemical and biological intrusions. Human ingenuity, available resources, and receptive environments present the terrorist opportunities greater than any threat our nation previously faced.

Yes, we need to try because the most devastating war against these adversaries would only make them more confident of spiritual victory.

[Retain Mike]

In a practical sense it seems humanitarianism can never be our basis for consistent international action, unless we had begun in 1945 by substituting the military for entitlements. Reagan certainly came the closest of anyone to achieving the goal when he picked a fight with the “Evil Empire”. The U.N. has moved far from that concept as demonstrated by placing Libya on the Human Rights Council.

I really appreciated Obama claiming human rights as criteria for Libyan action, when he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq; pointing out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/

I would agree that Afghanistan would not achieve a stable government as we would define it. Application of counterinsurgency tactics within Afghanistan would increase momentum among local religious, tribal and political leaders to reject Taliban jihadists and accept a national government. The objective would be to help them make pragmatic, consistent decisions recognizing utility of and alignment with Kabul.

Afghan and NATO combined units would clear jihadists from marginal regions, retain military forces, and allow reconstruction team entry. Locals would assume authority as behavior confirmed commitment to national goals. In rebellious regions attacks would disrupt Taliban units planning offensives, until regular presence expanded from adjacent pacific areas. Some areas would never be pacified.

The desired leadership would not be sociopaths according to their definitions, although we Westerners would probably always have doubts. The British managed to achieve a functioning India, but continually campaigned against the hill tribes, so some “political discussions” would always involve warfare.