[lit-ideas] Re: Harry S. Bush
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Luttwak is always an interesting read, but still I think he is kind of wrong
here.
"All this came to an abrupt end after 9/11. Sophisticates everywhere ridiculed
the uncompromising Bush stance, "Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists," as a cowboy stunt, but it was swiftly successful. Governments
across the Muslim world quickly changed their conduct."
Well yes, but militant extremist movements tend to have brutal and short lives
anyway. Mostly because they wear out their welcomes very soon, it is all well
to have religious zealots to fight against invading foreigners, but nobody
wants them to stick around after the conflict. See Bosnia for example.
The other reason is that the militans never achieve their goals, for the simple
reason that there is no such militant operation that would deliver the social
changes they seek. There is no Death Star to destroy. And this tends to cause a
crisis of faith and eventual fading away. See European red terror for example.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
