“The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews – even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.” -Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris from a Friday sermon on Palestinian Authority TV
The enemy has a sales pitch that can convince teenagers they’ll go to an orgy in heaven as long as they put on a jacket of explosives and detonate it in a crowded area. This is the enemy, a nameless, faceless, ordinary looking Arab amongst millions of ordinary looking Arabs. The stubble-faced, brown skinned terrorist with garment on head and machine gun in hand from the movies is nowhere to be seen when the enemy strikes its most deadly blows. Besides Allah himself deciding to descend and telling these people first hand to ‘knock it off’, how are we to defeat them? If they can keep recruiting human bombs for years to come, how are we to win?
Admittedly, the Bush administration did not foresee this particular element as part of the reality of reconstructing Iraq, and therefore managed to get our military stuck in a situation where they’ve had to tread some heavily shark infested waters without enough cages to go around. And that only goes for the troops, not the actual Iraqis themselves. As one of the most heartbreaking facts of our troops’ everyday lives in this war is the people they are there to defend are most often fall victim to the enemy’s attacks.
Where we in the blogsphere often go wrong is in viewing this war as right or wrong without taking a moment to consider everything that happened since the invasion. We rehash the moments leading up to the invasion, then pick and choose from the garden what we want to exploit for our own arguments. It’s the arguments we’re feeding that have lost their relevance in the big picture, and what ends up happening is the actual people living their days within the borders of Iraq fall to the back of our minds.
Our words towards one another from the White House on down are focused on bias, power struggles and the daily ins and outs of the never-ending American political game of ‘tag, you’re it!’ When it comes time to actually speak of the people trying to survive ‘inside the box’ over in Iraq, the ideas and rhetoric sound exactly the same whether we’re talking about it today, a month ago or a year ago.
“The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever.” “I am a person who looks long-term, and I recognize the path we need to take. There will be moments when people are unhappy and disgruntled with some decision-making. Nonetheless, what matters most is to reach the destination. And my job as President is to see clearly where I want to go and be steadfast in my resolve to realize that vision.” “We’re pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want.” –President George W. Bush
At this point it’s clear that the Iraqis are hard at work on ensuring their freedom. Saying that same thing for the next 12 months won’t help the situation at all. While the terrorists are provided proclamations from their leaders, ugly hateful statements like the first paragraph, the only thing the American public hears from it’s leadership is ‘freedom is good’. The enemy’s rhetoric equals suicide bombers.
With this in mind, it’s high time we began talking about what’s actually happening over there in an interested and inspired way and stop using the events only to pad our same tired arguments of things that have already happened and cannot be changed. The bloggers, the TV-heads, the politicians and most importantly the President all need to get focused on the task at hand with an open mind and a boatload more conviction and honesty. Deadissue.com isn’t exactly ‘mainstream’ as of this moment, but I’m going to try to get the ball rolling in this direction as best I can.
Where are the suicide bombers coming from, how are they gaining entry to Iraq and who is funding them? One country that bears responsibility for supplying the terrorists with bodies is Saudi Arabia. Rather than inviting them over for dinner, we need to start applying pressure to this country’s leadership to get serious about the problem. This means cracking down on the radical Islamist clerics within Saudi Arabia promoting the fight from the side of the terrorists. If these leaders can behead five Somalis for armed robbery to enact change within their society, then they are surely capable of enacting that same kind of discipline on the enemy. Regardless of what steps are taken, the status quo will only make our fight in Iraq harder to win.
If the religion of Islam can be preached in a way that allows the enemy to recruit youngsters to blow themselves up, surely America should be able to convince its own youngsters to take responsibility and enlist. President Bush hasn’t said a word about the recruiting shortfalls, nor has he gotten serious about the problems we’re now facing in terms of the overextension of our military. If the same amount of energy and work that has gone into his Social Security plan could have been spent on the military, we might not be facing such an uphill battle in terms of staffing units. He’s won a second term, and with that in mind, it’s time to stop worrying about political backlash and instead do whatever needs to be done to win this war.
The borders are our greatest vulnerability at this point in the war. The enemy is staffed because they’re able to move across the border with ease. A plan should be undertaken to shift resources from the center of Iraq to the border regions. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran must be behind working on border security on their side as well. Condoleezza Rice shot a blank at Syria while in Iraq, basically faulting one country for a problem that exists with all of them. Let the UN deal with Iran’s nuclear goals. As much as it’s politically sound-byte worthy to bash the organization, their inspection teams did prevent Saddam from obtaining or building a nuclear weapon. Fact is, the war is easier to win with the UN on our side. By shifting this responsibility to them, it would work as a sign of good faith amidst a never-ending stream of negative rhetoric from both sides, and would also enable us to engage in diplomacy with Iran that could possibly save lives in Iraq.
Naturally we want the Iraqis to gain the capability of taking care of themselves, but as of right now our plan is not working. Condoleezza Rice suggested that we cut down the length of training. This is another example of her wielding power and making things harder by speaking about things she should remain quiet about. Basically this statement questions whether our military knows what they’re doing, and questions the legitimacy of our training methods. If the military says it takes a certain amount of time to fully train an Iraqi to work security, she needed to work with the military to determine whether or not the program is too long or if portions of it are redundant. The problem now isn’t so much training them, but what happens afterwards. Does the recruit report to duty following training? When the bullets start flying, are they willing to shoot back? Where along the chain of command does there exist leaks that notify the enemy of who is signing up and where they live? The answers to these questions need to dictate policy going forward. It’s not going to be fixed with a band-aid such as suggesting the training be accelerated.
We have to get real in terms of positive diplomacy and slow down on the posturing. The leaders of all these nations know full well what our capabilities are, but with the war in Iraq, they’ve also learned of our vulnerabilities. The paramount goal must be to finish the job in Iraq first and once that’s done, then worry about the rest of the Middle East. Picking a fight with Syria or Iran only makes our job more difficult. Preserving the lives of our troops and the Iraqis has to be the goal of every policy decision from this point forward. The President needs to focus his organization with this idea in mind. Too much energy is being spent on putting out fires while lighting up new ones every other day. The media is going to latch onto the anti-Iran and anti-Syrian rhetoric and run with it, taking the pro-war Americans with them. The White House has to direct the attention away from any country other than Iraq. If it’s not about Iraq, it’s not the appropriate time to be talking about it.
On a high level we’ve failed to do what needs to be done to win this war. The White House is wasting time focusing on deflecting blame and enacting monumental social change at home. We’re at war and failing to focus our attention in the right way. A month-long campaign on changing Social Security followed up with a month-long campaign to rid the Senate of the judicial filibuster is not an appropriate use of valuable time while fighting a war. Ignoring the recruiting problems, root-causes for the enemy’s motivation or issues with training the Iraqi security force will not make any of them go away. The plan right now is not working, and rather than identifying scapegoats for why it’s not working, a new plan must be worked on and rolled out.
We need leadership right now. The country needs to be focused and energized behind this war. If we’re going to see out the spread of freedom we speak of so often, we cannot fail in Iraq. The only way to limit the amount of comparisons with Vietnam is to win. It’s time for President Bush to can the talking points and start leading this country towards that goal.
“I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch.” –George W. Bush
Good post. I think that many people in this administration have a fear of offending Saudi Arabia, they don’t want the oil turned off, but the spigot flows both ways they need our money as bad as we need their oil. The other problem with Iraq is that the objectives are still murky, for example, if the only goal is to create a democracy why are we building so many permanant bases. Permanant bases were a problem in Saudi Arabia and they seem to be an even bigger problem in Iraq.
One thing that comes up on this site and others is that what is religious freedom to one person is appression to another and the fanatics in the middle east are almost as fanatical as our fundamentalists here and probably just as unreasonable.(Right thinker, that last sentence was completely designed to yank your chain) Take care
Since you invited us over from Baldilocks’ I thought I’d take the opportunity to comment.
I agree with much of what you’ve said in the post. I was hoping for more solutions rather than a restating of the problems, but solutions are hard. Questions are easy.
I’m particularly interested in finding a solution for the Saudi problem. While they don’t directly sell us very much of our own oil needs, they are the largest single supplier of the world’s oil needs and any reduction to the world’s oil supply will impact us whether or not the reduction comes from one of our significant suppliers.
Influencing social changes in a closed society like Saudi Arabia is like trying the same in North Korea. The only difference is the pretense of friendship from one and the open emnity of the other. Neither one means us well.
Yes, we’re fighting a war but other things don’t stop to allow concentration solely on the war. Domestic issues continue and must also be attended to. Social Security is a domestic issue that needs to be addressed. The sooner the better. It’s going to be more important than ever as we see big corporations dumping their pension obligations onto a federal agency already in deficit. They transferred the burden with no matching transfer of funds to support the obligation. Some bankruptcy court judge made that decision. Effectively burdening the taxpayer without benefit of public debate. (There’s a good post brewing in that situation. Go for it.)
I think I know which statement you mean, the opening quote, but you could be referring to the one immediately above it. You might want to be more clear on which one you mean.
Yes, the borders are a problem, both at home and in Iraq. I don’t think that anybody is deliberately picking a fight with Iraq’s neighbors, but their enabling if not direct support of the terrorists making life difficult for Iraqis as well as our military in Iraq is picking a fight with us. When these rat lines are rolled up I have no doubt that it will include some fighting on, or maybe even across borders.
We’re presently letting the Euros work their little socialist hearts out trying to convince Iran of the error of their ways. I’d like to believe it’s going to work, but I’ve been around long enough to be unconvinced that the mullahs will go along with them. It’s much the same as Kim Jong Il. They’re playing the fools along as long as they can and doing what they want anyway. I can hope for an internal solution to the problem, and I believe that has a better chance than Euro diplomacy, but it’s not enough to bet more than a warm beer on. Can we sleep securely at night knowing that Iran is feverishly working on nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles? All for the peaceful generation of electricity, of course. ::eyeroll::
Sorry to have been so verbose in the comments thread. I trimmed it, honest.
Besides Allah himself deciding to descend and telling these people first hand to ‘knock it off’, how are we to defeat them? If they can keep recruiting human bombs for years to come, how are we to win?
Crushing suffocation seems to be the only answer. We need new sources of renewalable energy, anything wheter or not is is initially bad for the environment because we can fix it later.
We need to eliminate the need for oil, cut off their money supply and then, just like the KKK, Aryan Nation, Al Queda and the Nazis you slowly and systematically strangle the life out of them.
No exit strategy, no short term goals rather a global policy to erradicate this harbinger of destruction. They think they have it bad now? If we don’t we will be looking a another world war in our life times and maybe they will do to the Jews what Adolph Hitler couldn’t. Europe will fall under the onslaught and return to a 1800s level society, that’s my prediction.
If the religion of Islam can be preached in a way that allows the enemy to recruit youngsters to blow themselves up, surely America should be able to convince its own youngsters to take responsibility and enlist.
Well some kids did a story on this recruiter for the school paper and now there is a national recruiters day off to learn about ethics. What islam has is the ability to brainwash, threaten and manipulate the young, impressionable and mentally ill. Why on Earth would you hold our military to this sickening standard? This whole “they can do it so why can’t we” argument doesn’t hold water.
Let the UN deal with Iran’s nuclear goals.
What is a “debating society” going to do about Iran?
The only way to limit the amount of comparisons with Vietnam is to win.
We talked abot this a little before, how we had almost exhausted the communists ability to continue fighting but the will of the liberals surrender machine was greater than the staying power of the american people due to years of media bias. This insurgency is falling apart, their leadership is failing, their resources are dwindling, the “cosmological constant” of the U.S. military in it’s unrelenting stranglehold is grinding the enemy down. Will it become a garden of eden, a crime free utopia? There is no place on Earth like this, but Iraq will become a stable democracy, at least for a while until the next muslim conquerors “world of peace” tour.
One thing that comes up on this site and others is that what is religious freedom to one person is appression to another and the fanatics in the middle east are almost as fanatical as our fundamentalists here and probably just as unreasonable.(Right thinker, that last sentence was completely designed to yank your chain) Take care
HAHAHA, consider it yanked :- ) Actually, when I look at islamic fundamentalists I’m embarrassed of our own lack of religious radicals. Farrakkan hasn’t been responsible for anyones death for decades (that I know of–remember the zebra murders?) Sharpton, Robertson, I can’t even think of any names.
Where are our suicide bombers? Where are our boogie man impersonators and whack jobs? I’m afraid we’ve lost our edge in science, manufacturing and now religious radicallism. Abortion factories are running at full steam, much like the ovens at Auschwitz and no explosions or bombings. We fall behind other countries in math, science and now this.
McVeigh had not terror network, Al Sharpton just eats a lot and imbezzels money, Robertson is too busy with his TV show.
Jesse Jackson, What the fuck do you do, what the fuck do you do? — Chris Rock
Our words towards one another from the White House on down are focused on bias, power struggles and the daily ins and outs of the never-ending American political game of ‘tag, you’re it!’ When it comes time to actually speak of the people trying to survive ‘inside the box’ over in Iraq, the ideas and rhetoric sound exactly the same whether we’re talking about it today, a month ago or a year ago.
Or five years ago, or ten years ago or twenty years ago or fifty years ago. Agian, you talk as if this just suddenly happened. Roosevelt was the king of public deception, no one knew a fraction of what was going on there.
And you talk about Bush wanting to go to way? Here’s a quintessential example of a President who was desperate to find a way in to WW2. Chris, your a history/documentary buff so you know what I’m talking about. FDR put Americans at risk of German submarine attacks to generate public outcry in America’s isolationist centers.
This is sooo old news.
Right thinker:
Something we actually agree on, Americans are soft our cushy lifestyle has made even our radicals bland. Fred phelps is trying to put the rad back into radical though.
My point with the war is that we need to decide on specific attainable objectives as just saying we want to bring freedom to an area is a little vague and they may really want the freedom to hate the US.
Another thing I don’t get about the suicide bombers is they are killing themselves for a chance to have a orgy with a bunch of virgins this just seems like a contradiction, of course I don’d get the christian idea of heaven either as a bunch of mormons and jehvahs(sic) witnesses knocking on my door does not sound heavenly.
At this point it’s clear that the Iraqis are hard at work on ensuring their freedom. Saying that same thing for the next 12 months won’t help the situation at all. While the terrorists are provided proclamations from their leaders, ugly hateful statements like the one above, the only thing the American public hears from it’s leadership is ‘freedom is good’. The enemy’s rhetoric equals suicide bombers.
I am not sure what it is that your looking for. Wars aren’t won with words and just because some lunatic is able to whip his side up with lies and propaganda doesn’t mean we have to follow suit.
I’m not looking for Shakespear or Hemmingway to run this country and the war on Terror, I want Dirty Harry, Rambo from time to time and some Bruce Lee in there. The number of verbs a guy can put into one sentance has no bearing in our situation.
Ronald Reagan had a spectacular gift and that isn’t going to be seen again for along time. I don’t want speaches and flowery language, I want a guy who gets it and will get the job done. We have got to hit these people hard because that is all they understand. They chose this war and were gonna finish it, it’s cliche’ but they really have no chance.
My point with the war is that we need to decide on specific attainable objectives as just saying we want to bring freedom to an area is a little vague and they may really want the freedom to hate the US.
How do you know what’s attainable if it hasn’t been done before? Your looking for guarantees that can’t be given and this provides a false sence of security that we’ll be done soon.
What needs to be done is punch back hard and often until there is not fight left in them. The Israelis had a great system until the interational community got involved.
I think we need to just drop this concept of war altogether and just do a hot version of the Cold War. Small units who do nothing but hit back twice as hard, every time. The world is much smaller and we just have to shove back and let hem know they are no better than us and we won’t be held hostage on our own planet. I’m all for letting them find out if there are all these virgins waiting for them in heaven.
Another thing I don’t get about the suicide bombers is they are killing themselves for a chance to have a orgy with a bunch of virgins this just seems like a contradiction,
To the mentally retarded, the uneducated and the young this seems like a great deal, especially since someone so respected and charismatic is saying it. These peope have no idea this is a crock because everyone of them is so ignorant. Sorry, I’ve just got to say it. They are critically ignorant of what the world is like, not to mention being ignorant of what their own religion is about.
Welcome! Be as long winded as you’d like. I’ll be online tomorrow – thanks for posting the comments. Always good to have another point of view in the mix.
I’m a lot more curious about FDR’s actions leading up to Pearl Harbor. I’m exausted right now, but wanted to hit this one up because it jumped off the page and punched me in the eye.
How many of the lives lost to launch us into war in WW2 were collateral damage, or sacrifices made for the good of friends facing a tough notion of anihilation abroad? Much like what we teach our children about the discovery of America – much of what we’re taught about this time in our history is wraped in the flag and the rough spots all sanded down.
The question…is there a greater duty, or a higher calling that forces like-minded threads of humanity together for the sake of each other’s survival? What is the pre-requisite, and at this point in the world’s history, does there exist a reason other than religion compelling people to make such sacrifices? How many alliances did we have prior to Powell’s presentation to the UN, and how many do we have now?
Foreign troop strength in Iraq has a lot to do with the uphill battle we now face both diplomatically and on the ground. More allies equals more influence, and more bodies/equipment. And as the dificulties build up all around, has it finally settled in, why the idea that the ‘ends justify the means’ and the manipulation used must be part of the strategy outside of our borders moreso than inside? The politics and pupeteering enacted on the American people…without the ability to maintain any level of this outside of our borders…what exactally is our expected outcome here?
The US versus radical Islam. Did we sign up for this? Is our leadership extremely good at playing the game within our borders, but extremely limited at playing it outside of our borders? Are they in over their heads once it’s time to manipulate the rest of the world? Is the Arab world merely waiting for this young, upstart nation of ours to bleed out? And were the diplomatic chances of George Bush Jr. or his father coming out ahead with the Saudis like the chances of an investment banker getting the best of Tony Soprano?
(Suns-Mavs, amazing game 6)
Your rambos and dirty harrys are just inflaming the situation. You cannot make people like you at the point of a gun. It does not take a whole lot of people to fight a guerrilla war, it just takes a sympathetic population and a few fanatics, and abusing prisoners leads to a sympathetic population and probably a few fanatics.
I don’t think you can point to Isreal as a success story, although it does seem like Iraq has become our own Lebanon.
You cannot make people like you at the point of a gun.
The point was never to be liked, I could care less, I’ve got friends so I’m doing ok. Besides, these aren’t the kind of people I like to hang around with. I have a love of life and a respect for it that these guys just don’t share.
I don’t think you can point to Isreal as a success story, although it does seem like Iraq has become our own Lebanon.
Israel had a great system for dealing with these killers, hit back 5 times as hard, go after the supporters and families and build a security wall.
I’m not sure what you mean about Lebanon, historically speaking, we’ve been in Iraq for the blink of an eye.
Did we sign up for this?
No, we were forced into this and that’s the way they want it. A few factions of Islam are fighting for which faction gets to take over the world, we are just their playground. I’m still wondering what you think we could have done to appease these people. Nothing short of global domination is acceptable. We could all convert to islam, that might work.
I agree with this statement completely. The problems are easy to rehash over and over and over again. The idea I had with this piece was to avoid the overdone issues we have all heard about and made up our minds about already.
I feel that these questions are ones we’re avoiding at this point. The domestic concerns are all that’s talked about now, and the war has been boiled down to a few overdone talking points from both sides.
I think it’s becoming obvious that what you’re saying is exactally right. I’ve been reading a lot of Saudi material on the web, and was troubled to learn how much money the company Bechtel makes off of them. It’s a racquet. The Saudis need a job to be done, so they outsource it to Bechtel who then outsources it to a company that will pay the cheapest salaries. Since Bechtel is a private company, the details of such transactions aren’t available to the public.
I saw Faranheight 911 once in the theaters and haven’t seen it since…but I remember being made aware of that company in the movie. The next time I heard of it, I was researching for these past few articles. Why is that? And if Halliburton got grilled for doing business with Iran through a subsiduary, how come Bechtel can profit so much from Saudi without the same amount of speculation?
Way ahead of you! http://deadissue.com/archives/2005/03/28/democrats-must-protect-our-pensions/
I should repost this. The judge followed the law. State law or federal law? That’s where I’ve got to look.
Thanks for the suggestion. I read this and changed it late last night before I went to sleep.
Condi blamed Syria – and it’s more than likely that Saudi Arabia for one is doing the exact same thing. The selective condemnation won’t result positively for us in the long run. These countries know we’re stretched to the max in Iraq. It’s the wrong play by our Secretary of State.
I’d contend that we have little to no evidence of what you’re attesting to here. I’m extremely wary of hype at this point. Intelligence we receive from Israel must be intensely scrutinized as well. The UN, I’ll say it again, did ensure that Saddam never obtained or created a nuclear weapon. This means something.
And again StinKerr – go on for as long as you’d like…a few of us here do the same. If I’m responding to a post of yours, I’ll carry it all over in quotes. Normally I’m very quick with the responses. Thanks again for checking the site out and posting comments!
Thanks karl. StinKerr pointed out that Saudi doesn’t supply us with much of our oil. Canada is our primary supplier. I’m starting to think that oil is merely a smokescreen. Bechtel is where we need to look.
If we were to stop purchasing Saudi oil, China or someone else would benefit from the increased capacity. If we become the largest importer of Iraqi oil, the Saudis could very easily begin selling theirs to the far east. The shipping wouldn’t cost much more at all based on the distance it would have to travel. It’s not as easy as we’d like to believe. Again, the oil is what we focus on, but it’s more than that.
I don’t agree with this prediction, as the actual power of Islam is not as serious a problem in Europe as we make it out to be. One notorious murder I can recall in the Netherlands, and the bombing in Spain. The people who will go biblical and blow themselves up are the ones with nothing else worth living for. European officials are on guard, and their law enforcement capabilities are just as good if not better than ours.
We don’t need to brainwash our own people to join the fight if it’s a noble endeavor. If we’re over in Iraq for good reasons and the outcome is worth the sacrifice, it should be a manageable sell. What’s missing here is leadership.
What they did when Saddam was under sanctions. The oil for food scandal was the work of a different part of the organization than the inspectors. The weapons inspectors did a fine job in ensuring that Saddam never never obtained the bomb. This tells me that they know what they’re doing. And any work that can be delegated or shifted off of our plate is something we need to be seriously considering at this point in the war. Everything we have needs to be focused on Iraq. We have to succeed there if we’re going to succeed elsewhere later on.
Right – what definitive evidence do you have that any of what you’ve said here is true? Commanders in Iraq paint a much bleaker picture. In terms of Vietnam, I can’t understand why you’d think this assessment of yours is correct. Is there a historian you’ve read whose made this case? Because this is something that can and has been nailed down in the past. We can surely nail it down right here. But backup is essential.
Quite simply, I’m looking for Bush to instead of saying there’s ‘hard work’ to do – to describe what that ‘hard work’ entails. I’m looking for him to call out to the nation for volunteers to fight this war. He doesn’t have to give faith to the enemy by saying any of this, but can do it in a way that energizes the nation and helps out the military.
I’m looking for him to be a leader here and help out the military. Rumsfeld has too much on his plate, and hasn’t been able to effectively take care of the problems at hand. Faith and assumptions regarding the enemy don’t work for me. I don’t understand this fetish we here in America have with just assuming that someone else is going to make it all better…that the very notion of mistakes currently being made is just so out of bounds and illogical, and that the enemy HAS to be growing weaker. Why? Because of who we are?
On the one hand Right, you want for us to take seriously the threat of Islam, but then in this argument you’re attesting that they’re losing and heading towards defeat. Am I wrong in pointing this out? It seems like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
We’ve done this several times before. I don’t think we’re punching hard at them. Not when their supply lines are still up and running. They’re a hell of a lot more accustomed to this than we are. Their culture has been a series of such upheavals for more years than we probably even know about. We’re the ones who are new to this sort of thing, and our Cold War maneuvering in Afghanistan led to 9/11.
The point of all this was to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and now it’s about ensuring a free democracy is in place before we leave. I’m not as concerned about the problems of religion in poor far off lands. As religion in poor far-off lands has lead to this many times before. Islam isn’t the only religion that’s turned poor impoverished people into fanatics capable of murder.
You’re turning this into a war against radical Islam, when that’s not what the American people signed up for. I’m looking at it like this – – – We’re in Iraq to help ensure their freedom. After that, it needs to be agreed upon by the people. A war against Islam is what certain religious leaders of the Christian persuasion here in America are selling this thing as, but it’s a distortion.
We must use our expertise to counter the rantings of the mullahs and do it in a way that exposes the hate for what it is. When in Rome do as the Romans do!
Paul – welcome! I really like your site, I’ve posted a link on the side…Shadow of Diogenes…everyone should check it out.
As for your comment – I’m not sure that we have expertise in dealing with this type of a thing. The enemy has been fighting folks like us for generations, literally centuries of time.
I’m not going to pretend that my ideas are the key to winning the war, but the introduction of alternatives is part of the key to winning – and limiting our focus to succeeding in Iraq is also a key. Rice’s statement to Syria is the kind of thing that will only further muddy the waters. Same for Iran.
As for ‘when in Rome’…I think we’re keeping up on the ‘hate’ speech pretty well, only it’s not equaling recruits on the back end. Such messages with no results are useless. In reality – being right is often only part of the battle. We can be right and still lose if we don’t play the game effectively.
Pingback: deadissue.com » Blog Archive » Some Stern Inspiration