Brian Sak recently made an interesting comment to our earlier Ultimatum thread, saying, in part:
I think you should amend one of your final statements to read simply "The War on Terror can never be won."...The scope is too large for a complete victory.
Before someone accuses Mr. Sak of being an anti-war handwringer, reading his comments in full makes it clear that he's not simply saying "quit fighting." He's criticizing the rhetoric. To an extent, I think he's got a point, even though I don't fully agree.
The truth of the matter is we're not really at war with terrorism. We're at war with radical Islam. Martin Devon, the Patio Pundit, recently laid that out pretty well in this recent posting. I liked Devon's comments so much because, frankly, I've never really understood why people couldn't clearly see why the administration was doing what it was doing. I always felt like I got it and everyone else was just missing something. I could just never put my finger on quite what it was.
We're not at war with terrorism. Oh, to a certain extent we are, inasmuch as we've done some things to crack down on the IRA and some of the eco-terrorists. But those aren't major activities. The truth is that we're at war with radical Islam, and forces in the East who are trying to straddle the fence between us and them. I've always thought this was so and, somehow, I thought most others did too. The administration and the congress cannot afford to say this openly, because it would open up too big a can of worms, creating hysterical cries that we're waging "another Crusade," "Islam vs. The West," and etc.
But it is radical, extremist Wahhabism we're at war with. Their primary weapon is terror. Our shorthand for this is "War On Terrorism" because there's no better term for it. There may be clearer terms, but not better ones. Saddam Hussein is giving money and public encouragement to radical Islam groups. He's also defied countless terms of his surrender conditions. We have endless evidence that he's hiding a weapon development program that would endanger much of the world. By taking down Iraq, we gain much leverage with regimes in the region who look the other way at, or even give support to radical, Wahhabbist Islamic rhetoric (not to mention financial assistance to the families of "martyrs.")
It's not really a war on terrorism. We're just calling it that. On the one hand, long term, we would do well to remind ourselves that we cannot spend the next hundred years fighting a vague "War On Terrorism," attacking every cheap anarchist who comes along with the full brunt of our military. On the other hand, I have faith in the decency and common sense of the American people; we'll cry "hold, enough!" when the time is right. That time isn't now.
While I'm pushing Patio Pundit, though, I might as well also mention this neat piece that Gary Utter sent me, comparing America to Gary Cooper in High Noon. Before you roll your eyes and groan, you may want to actually read it. Orrin Judd, the author, makes his point awfully well, and better than I would have thought anyone could.
Dean,
I am not sure what Mr. Sak means by saying that there are no winners in war, excepting the Iran-Iraq War and the Korean War. I cannot think of any other war where there was not a clearly defined winner and loser. We clearly won WWII and WWI. We clearly lost the Vietnam War.
If we do not win this war on terrorism then terrorism will consume us. The terrorist goal is the destruction of the U.S.A. and the governments of Western Europe. They blame the west for all their current problems and incorrectly believe that by destroying us their problems will end.
The “Arab street” is too ignorant to realize that all their problems are internal and that they always blame their problems on outside forces beyond their control. Arab governments prefer this to admitting their own systemic failures. Arab governments have failed their own Arab constituents repeatedly. Stoking the fires of radical Islam is one clever way to deflect any self-criticism.
Radical Moslems believe that if they return to a “purer” form of Islam, which never existed, their problems will ameliorate themselves. However, in order to do this they must first, eradicate the foreign, polluting forces polluting their Islamic society currently. That is we folks.
This is just another type of blame game currently making the rounds in the Middle East (ME). During Nasser's term as President-Dictator of Egypt the Arabs thought Nasserism, or Arab nationalism, would deliver them from the clutches of the European powers. Nasser failed then died.
Muhammad Ali of Egypt, which was then a province of the Ottoman Empire, thought it would be a good idea to rid Egypt of the British in 1886 before Nasser. You see he was tired of European meddling too, way back in 1886. He fought a war against the British and lost miserably thereby solidifying British control over the Suez Canal for another eighty years. There was nobody else to expel the British until the 1956 Suez Crisis.
Mr. Ali forgot to accept any blame for the problems of his Egypt as Nasser did or as the "Arab street" does today. The reason the British got control of Egypt is that the provincial dictator of Egypt asked the British to manage Egypt for him! This is absolutely true. I am not kidding.
Mr. Ali involved Egypt in so many costly foreign wars and so badly managed the building of the Suez Canal that he bankrupted his own country. He had no money left to govern. Mr. Ali then asked the British to manage his country since he did such an incompetent job. The British, much to their credit, refused. Mr. Ali then asked the seafaring nation to manage just the Suez Canal, which the British saw as an economical shortcut to their crown colony, India. The British then "meddled" this way in the Middle East upon the invitation of the provincial governor for the next eighty years.
Now that is foreign meddling according to the "Arab street." Arab opinion is confused since it rests on ignorance and conspiracy theories. For some reason they do not see their own governments as the problem. They are completely brainwashed by their own totalitarian regimes. We must fight this ignorance.
The power of ME dictators and would-be dictators is based upon this ignorance. If we are to win this war against radical Moslems, we must first remove the governments protecting them. Every person lives inside some country. No terrorist organization exists in outer space. If we deprive these terrorists a place on earth to live and organize then they cannot exist anywhere. In order to do this we must remove terrorist supporting regimes such as Iraq, Iran and Syria.
Iraq exists between two other terrorist supporting states: Iran and Syria. I believe that once we remove Mr. Hussein and replace him with a more likeable chap then Iran and Syria will become much more copacetic. Iran will be sandwiched between two U.S. allies: Afghanistan and Iraq. American allies Israel, Jordan, Turkey, and the Asian republics of the former U.S.S.R. nearly surrounded Syria. Iraq will complete the circle.
This proximity to American allies will make it all that easier to pressure Iran and Syria to give up on their support of terrorism. If they do not play ball then we can then change their regimes as well. This may sound like Yankee gunboat diplomacy, but please consider the alternative.
We must then engage the ME in a new discussion on their future. It must be one where they accept responsibility for their own future. We are not their enemies. We are not the cause of any of their problems, either. Once the Arabs realize this then they may be more receptive to modernization and coexistence with the west.
Winning this war on terrorism will be much easier if we win this war with Iraq first and foremost. Nothing will be more convincing to the ME than winning this thing overwhelmingly and quickly. I do see us winning this war. It will not take forever.
Kevin Brehmer
Allow me to roll my eyes at the High Noon reference: Bill Clinton's favorite movie is High Noon.
So, did you read the article before rolling your eyes? It's not about Bush, it's about America. What Bill Clinton would have to do with any of it, I have no idea. :)