I don't always think in
complete little ideas, usually just unfinished chunks of bigger ones. After the Mubai attacks I was more inclined to a hawk type of solution. Trying to get my head around some type of simplified policy to deal with the whole thing i read this quote posted
on Ace. Along list of attacks followed by:
'"So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come – it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.'"
The quote come from World Net Daily:
Enough is enough of radical Islam. Not much of a fan of the site after all the birth certificate pieces they have been running. It summed up most of the problems i have with the current foreign policies. Of course it also went way to far.
"Enough with the myths. Not everyone on earth is crying out for freedom. There are plenty of people who are happy in their misery, believing that their suffering is part and parcel of a correct religious system. Those people direct their anger outward, targeting unbelievers. We cannot simply knock off dictators and expect indoctrinated populations to rise to the liberal democratic challenge. The election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is more a rule than an exception in the Islamic world."
What do we do then? Carpet bomb? No, people can't cry out for freedom if they have no idea what it is. The only exeption i might make is for North Korea. Coexistence between their religion and a free society can't be found if they can't define freedom and are not taught to read even their own religious texts let alone any examination of any real kind of history. That is complete nonsense. The election of Hamas? What where the other choices? Would they even know what one would look like? Compare it to the
thoughts of one that has been on the ground In that part of the world.
"Enough with the lies. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it is, prove it through action."
I don't have the intellectual ammo to refute this but I don't believe that to be the whole truth. What I do know that that will make at the least a whole lot of very uncooperative people. It is not that black an white although it should be more clear than it is being portrayed. The piece was a nice ramble but would convince no one of his view. He is preaching to the choir. It is nice from time to time but is absolutely useless to me. I moved on it fell out of the news.
Then today there is this:
Some Disparate Dots from
Shrink Wrap via
Bookworm Room and
Watcher’s Council nominations. This is a much better and more useful way to look at the matter.
"The West chose, and President Bush could not or would not take issue with the prevailing wisdom, to treat Islamic terror as distinct from and in conflict with traditional Islam as practiced and supported by states throughout the Muslim world. This was always an argument that had more realpolitik to it than reality and it crucially caused the West to disarm in the intellectual and information aspects of the ideological struggle with Islamic radicalism. Traditional Islam is a target rich environment for an ideological struggle. The traditionalists are completely inept in dealing with ridicule yet they constantly insist on issuing a stream of ridiculous pronouncements."
Then very nicely slides into our side of the problem.
'Compounding our problems, the West has been in an extended ideological slide of its own. It is not just that our elites have become unmoored from the traditional anchors of our ethics and morality (religion, tradition) but they have adopted as their ideological underpinnings a new variant on the Marxist mantra. We have gone from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" to a more nuanced and contemporary "to each according to his desires, from each according to his willingness to donate (sometimes under coercion) his time, energy, and money."'
Religion in this case as religious philosophy not of articles of faith from my view. Wrapping it up:
"All these dots may only be related in my imagination yet they suggest that the Obama administration is going to elect not to fight ideologically against the Islamists but will try to manage terror using a policing model (with the more unsavory aspcets of the Bush approach, such as extraordinary rendition, simply being hidden and denied) which is guaranteed to never address the actual causes of Islamic terror."
A much more reasoned approach. It is as well a clear example of how the basic ideology of the in coming administration leads to all kinds of problems. Frankly it is dangerous. I found the Bush administration to walk a tight rope between the anti-war socialistic legalistic approach and a tempered war response. We all seem to ignore all of the Obama philosophy for so much useless minutia on every thing but. Why have we moved so far from the alternative to both takes?
From my hawkish prospective it is about time to ramp up the military, call those causing the problems out and be done with all this. Very over simplified. Yes military action should be the last resort but it should be all but off the table. What has been gained by the endless talking to to Iran? What happened to calling at least for regime change in places like Iran? What is the state of the broadcasts into Iran? What aggressive steps are we taking? What are the consequences for the bad actors on the world stage? None?
Give me a hawk, please! I want this over with. If in the end it takes three or four more Iraqs fine. I think we have a good idea on how to do it right now. I never understood exactly what was the opposition to nation building was. Is it hard? Yes. Can it fail? Yes. Weighing that against a failed state which is less dangerous? If we went down that road again, make threats and backed them up just once I don't know that that much military intervention would be necessary.
Islamic terror is the issue on the table. When we decide to stop sitting on the fence intervene into the internal affairs of countries we should as well fix the mistakes of WWII. Change the borders when needed. Kashmir, Chechnya, Africa and any number of places. Let us all just make the push for a sustainable peace. It gets complicated when you try to enforce your will on to a country. There are basic that can be used and still allow a country retain its own culture. Free speech, some mechanism to express the will of the people, the ability of the people to obtain information (history, news, ect.) and the ability for citizens to leave for another country if they so desire.
Obama and crew with a legalistic approach giving enemies of all stripes room to make gains if not achieve their goals. Bush just trying to hold the line with the Obama types on his back. Maybe just may be we need to take a look at a more hawkish approach and at least get this over with and at best build a lasting peace.
