Posted on 12/03/2002 7:00:33 PM PST by moneyrunner
Terrorism, The War, and Islam
One of the most nonsensical statements I hear opponents of the war against Saddam make is that it distracts from the war on terrorism. That is true only if you define terrorism as that which is committed by Al Qaeda. The reality is that, despite political noises coming from Washington, the US – and by extension the West – is in a war against militant Islam, or as one writer terms it: Islamofacism.
Of course, the Bush administration denies this. And the denial makes sense in geo-political terms. It does little good to force schizophrenic countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia and a whole host of other Muslim countries into active opposition, when a little bit of fudging they are can remain officially neutral (like Saudi Arabia) or favor us tactically (like Pakistan) when telling the brutal truth would force them into opposition or lead to revolution – before we are ready.
But if the war on terror is more than the war on Al Qaeda, what is the evidence of this? There can be little doubt that the 9/11 attacks were the work of Bin Laden’s terrorists. But the problem is wider than that, as evidenced by the reaction of the Islamic “street.” Reaction to the attack of 9/11 ranged from jubilation by crowds in Middle Eastern streets to calls for “Death to America” by Muslim religious leaders to … silence by the “Moderate Muslims” in the US and overseas. No, worse than silence; an immediate claim to victim hood for suspicious looks and covert glances. The Muslim community did not rally to its US brethren, because we and they are – apparently - not brethren. When Muslims had to decide if they are with us or with those who murdered 3000 of us on 9/11 their loyalties went with the terrorists.
So we are in a war on a scale not seen since World War 2. We are faced with an enemy that can be defined by ethnicity and religion, concentrated in the Middle East and Asia, with a large community within the West and funded by the oil wealth of the Middle East.
We are faced with a violent clash of incompatible cultures. Islamofacism has demonstrated a rare fanaticism plus the financial resources to fund a global war. The war was also made possible by a defect in Western culture characterized by ”multiculturalism,” the false belief that all cultures have an equal moral value. That, in turn, made it politically impossible to identify and arrest, prior to 9/11, those individuals in our society who were plainly attempting to do us harm. And even today, the Left in the West are divided in their loyalties. They have spent so much moral capital on their hatred of the West that now, when they are under attack, they have lost the instinct to defend themselves and the ability to understand their peril.
Which leads us to the broader question of: what do we do now? If we wish to win this war we must take a broad view. To win we will need to deny the enemy his bases, his materiel and his financial resources. We must break his will to fight. We must demonstrate that attacks on us leads to destruction of the attacker…his adherents… his possessions … his family and all he holds dear. “War is Hell,” and it is necessary to remind those who would wage war against us of that fact in ways they will whisper – in fear - to their grandchildren.
Fortunately, Saddam Hussein has volunteered, after the Taliban in Afghanistan, to be the first Head of State to become an example. Fortunately … because he is so universally reviled that no one will mourn his passing. The US needs Saddam because he is to be the casus belli – the reason for going to war with Islamofascism (without appearing to go to war with Islam).
If for no other reason, Saddam must be removed before Iraq develops nuclear weapons. Nukes are the global “Great Equalizer.” They are the weapon that allows a small band – or a small country – to destroy whole cities with a single device. They are the ultimate terror weapon and, for that reason, must be denied to fanatics who would commit homicide on a massive scale.
But the reason for his removal is much broader. His will be the first regime in the Middle East to become an American occupation zone. Iraq will become the base from which the US will extend its power to those Muslim regimes that breed the particularly virulent brand of Islamofascists that threaten the West.
Saddam’s fall will prove that America is both morally and militarily capable of taking on and defeating its enemies. It will be the staging area from which “neutrals” like Saudi Arabia will be induced to end their support of Islamofacism or face the overthrow of their regimes. If the Ayatollahs of Iran have not fallen by that time, we will provide the resources to the student movement that will hasten their demise. Syria, Libya and the other Islamic states of the region will find themselves in a unipolar world where enmity to the US is deadly. The Palestinians will find it much more difficult to carry on their campaign of terror as their former allies either fall or are intimidated by the US military presence, and peace may actually come to that blood soaked region.
As the oil money funding Islamofacism dries up, insurgencies in Indonesia will be easier to stamp out and the funding of Islamofascist religious academies in Pakistan, other parts of the Mid East and Asia, and even the West will stop breeding the next generation of homicide bombers.
This is an ambitious plan, but, like World War 2, is one that is forced on us because of the scope and virulence of the enemy facing us. It will not be easily won or quickly over because, unlike Desert Storm, it cannot end with a cease fire. Because a cease fire will only be the lull between battles. It must end with the destruction of the will to fight on the part of the enemy – the enemy being defined here as an entire culture.
And, in the end, there may still be a tragedy. We will win. But we will have established an empire. And empires have built into them the seeds of their own destruction.
First, you are right that the USA is not yet an empire, although it has many of the characteristics of an empire. For example, we send our domestic police to hunt for criminals in other countries and station our troops in foreign lands. You will note that whereas we have troops in Japan and Germany, they have none in the US.
However, we will be an empire, born of chance and need. The need is that this is the only way to fight and win the war against Islamofascism. The war with Iraq will result in our conquest of that country. It’s people will be more free and will live better as a result, but we will be in charge of the government – even if someone acceptable to us becomes the de-facto ruler. We will occupy that country, and our troops will be able to occupy other areas in that part of the world that harbors our enemies.
I hate to disagree with you, but you may not understand the nature of previous empires. In many cases, they brought a better life to the populations of the countries they conquered. The British created their empire with military might, and enforced their rule with armed force, but they generally increased the amount of freedom the ordinary person enjoyed in the lands they conquered, abolished slavery, provided fairer government, introduced modern medicine, and in general improved the lot of those countries that were part of the Empire.
Keep in mind that empires always spread their ideas, generally relating to their views of government. The Romans and the British both spread their laws and customs into the countries they conquered.
Thank you for your comments.
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.