[lit-ideas] Re: Defining the enemy

Actually, I'm not running across much that I haven't read elsewhere or thought 
about, but Podhoretz writes well.  And yes, the Bush doctrine compares well 
with the Truman Doctrine.   Leftists express antagonism against Bush's leading 
us in war against Islamofascism which is incomprehensible unless 1) the Leftist 
supports our enemy, or 2) Leftists are slapped silly and stupid by 
anti-American propaganda.  I have been assuming that the Lit-Ideas leftists are 
in the enemy camp but I may be wrong.  

Page 57  "For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the cold 
war doctrines of deterrence and containment.  In some cases, those strategies 
still apply.  But new threats also require new thinking.  Deterrence -- the 
promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy 
terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend."

"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best.  We cannot 
put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation 
treaties, and then systematically break them."

Page 58: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too 
long. . . . The war on terror will not be won on the defensive.  We must take 
the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats 
before they emerge.  In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is 
the path of action.  And this nation will act."

I was encouraged by all that when Bush voiced it early on, but I expected way 
back then and commented to that effect that the anti-Americans would come out 
from under their rocks and the dark places where they've been lurking to 
undermine this effort at self-defense.  That was a given.  But perhaps, I 
commented, the Bush doctrine would be so well established that, like the Truman 
Doctrine, subsequent administrations would follow it even though they lost 
sight of what it was.  It doesn't really matter if Bush gets credit, no more 
than it mattered that the underrated Harry Truman did.  What matters is that 
the war goes forward and that we at long last win.

Lawrence



------------Original Message------------
From: Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, Sep-26-2007 7:07 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defining the enemy
Lawrence, I finished Podhoretz's book last week and my next book will likely be 
Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA.  I heard Mr. Weiner being 
interviewed and he said:


"Let me suggest to you that the war we are now in may last as long as the Cold 
War.  And to quote Mike Hayden, General Hayden, head of the CIA, this is an 
intelligence war.  We are not going to win this war with fighter jets or 
nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers.  We are going to win it with intelligence 
and information and ideas.  IF that is true we need to cultivate a generation 
of Americans who speak [foreign languages] and those people need to know not 
only the languages but the histories and the cultures of the countries where 
those languages are spoken.  And then we can go out and win this war."


As you'll see Podhoretz agrees that the battle of freedom over Islamofascism's 
tyranny (World War IV) will likely last as long as the Cold War (World War III) 
and believes key element is something that is near and dear to your heart.  
Labeling the enemy properly.  I think you will also enjoy the discussion of the 
Bush Doctrine contrasted with the realist and liberal internationalist schools 
of thought.


Best,
Brian


On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:42 PM, Lawrence Helm wrote:


A couple of weeks ago we discussed Ian Baruma’s review of Norman Podhoretz’ 
World War IV, The Long Struggle against Islamofascism. I subsequently bought 
the book and have just read the prologue.

Other related posts: