July 11, 2005
There are, of course, those today who think it possible to step back from the brink of war and negotiate with or appease the enemy - mostly because they have a different analysis of the root causes of the current conflict - yet demoralising the public is a textbook example as to How to lose a war:
... the terrorists and their supporters understand that in a strange way the West is not only split, but also increasingly illiberal as well. It has lost confidence in its old commitment to rationalism, free speech and empiricism, and now embraces the deductive near-religious doctrines of moral equivalence and utopian pacifism. Al Qaeda's supporters will say that Thursday's victims were killed because of Afghanistan or Iraq. Westerners will duly repeat the dull refrain that "Bush lied, thousands died" in their guilt-ridden search for something we did to cause this.Salim Mansur's column World must unit to fight terrorists links the G8 conference with some apt historical parallels:And so, rather than focus our attention on the madrassas and the mosques that preach hatred, we will strive to learn more about Islamic culture, as if our own insensitivity were the true culprit. Our grandfathers could despise Bushido — Japan's warrior cult — without worrying whether they were being unfair to Buddhists; we of less conviction and even less courage, cannot do likewise.
In the 19th century, the great European powers of the time came together to end piracy on the high seas, and make the sea-lanes of the world safe for commerce.The reference to ending piracy on the sea lanes is in part based upon the shared history of the countries of many of those at the G8 when they finally confronted the Barbary Pirates in the early part of the 19th century, the tradition of which was often invoked after Sept. 11 and contains within it the seeds of the strategy we would be employing in the war on terror as well as the long term patience and committment it would require.Similarly, Britain took the leadership in ending traffic in slavery, and the United States had to survive a civil war to abolish it from its lands. Thus were the terrible scourges of piracy and slavery in human history brought to an end.
Now, once again, the great powers of the world must set a common purpose to end this latest form of global banditry -- dismissing with deserving contempt all the excuses offered by the so-called well-meaning "liberal" folks in the West.
Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute! This slogan was inspired under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson and the need to take the fight to the pirates as well as protect our shipping interests led to the establishment of the U.S. Navy. [Those who delive deeper might be pleased to learn that our struggle to end the tributes was not initially supported by Europe, shipping was further protected by the naval power of the day - the British! - and those who love irony will appreciate that, although the French had long urged us to pay, they eventually ended the reign of the pirates by capturing Algiers in 1830.]
Mansur notes:
Bandits win, if they win at all, when lawfully organized society is drained of its will to eliminate banditry from its midst.When I look at the time lag between terror attacks in major cities, I wonder of al Qaeda recognizes that a number of attacks within a shorter time frame would likely ennervate those who seem at present to be lethargic.
For many of us the terror attacks in Iraq have heightened our determination to pursue the war, but it's discouraging that al Qaeda attacks in Iraq are blamed on the war and the countries that removed Saddam. That contortion conveniently side steps dealing with the fact that groups like al Qaeda want us gone in order to assert total domination over all Muslims without regard as to what those Muslims might think of the prospect.
It is also indicative of a failure to embrace all humanity and respect all human rights: the outcry when the U.S. mistakenly kills civilians is not equaled when the "insurgents" of Zarqawi deliberately murder civilians. The implicit message is that it's all right for Muslims to kill Muslims which discredits the claims of those opposed to the war as to how much they truly respect human life without qualification.
I earlier employed the term "brink of war" because I recognize that, thus far, this war has been conducted with far more restraint than some credit and others would like. I doubt the American public is ready to "go all Roman" and salt Mid-east soil; most of us recognize that a strategy of destablizing the current "sick old men of the Mid-east" is much as an antibiotic is to disease and we are willing to see if this course of treatment will take effect.
Surely if one root cause of terrorism is despair then the antidote is hope. Yet shy should we be be ashamed that among our values we include hope? I happen to believe that the racism this war has revealed comes not from those of us who view the stifled potential of those living under tyranny as an atrocity but from those whose paternalism and superiority leads them to conclude that people who live in Third world countries are inherently incapable of embracing freedom and thus dismiss the significance of the January Iraqi election turnout. As U.S. Secretary of State Rice recently pointed out, democracy is not imposed but tyranny is.
The hoopla over the rock stars and their participation at the G8 conference served to render that conference about as serious as any other circus. Their motivations are probably a mixture of naivete and a bit of believing their own press, but their solutions will do little to help and perhaps do more to entrench racism than they might wish. There is an implicit acceptance that African leaders will always be corrupt but do they not realize that, as with Saddam, unmonitored aid money will not only go into their own pockets but also to those instruments which keep the citizens of those countries oppressed?
Back to Hanson, those urging we must endeavour to learn about Islam in order to further our tolerance misses the mark by so wide a margin as to indirectly prove his assertion that the West is increasingly illiberal:
tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.If a prequisite to tolerating Islam is to learn about it, is that not itself symptomatic of intolerance?
I don't have to "know" any much less all the tenets of Hinduism to respect those who practice it. I don't have to know anything about anyone to recognize that we all march to the beats of different inner drummers and that the true diversity of the human race is revealed on every face and in every heart.
Those demanding tolerance would do better to learn to embrace it; tolerance isn't a two-way street but an eight-lane highway and those who fail to follow the rules of the road shouldn't complain when they are involved in a fatal collision.
I don't care what religion or creed motivates someone who is trying to kill me; if I get the chance I'll take them out first and if I die in the attempt then so be it. I call that sanity.
(VDH link via Newsbeat1)
Posted by: Debbye at
04:51 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1253 words, total size 8 kb.
Posted by: maz2 at July 12, 2005 10:40 AM (KxAkl)
Posted by: Pat Patterson at July 12, 2005 12:35 PM (ml9iv)
Posted by: tonyGuitar at July 12, 2005 12:55 PM (rmMzv)
64 queries taking 0.0857 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.