[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:11:54 -0500
Johnson and MacNamara killed 3,050,000 million people, dropped more bombs on
one country than in all of WWII combined, and when they say, stop, don't go
there, we say they're just interesting psychological studies. The value of
experience.
Regarding the fall of the Soviet Union, they rotted from within. They had
horrendous infrastructure, produce rotted in the fields, blah blah blah. But,
American hubris says we defeated them. So be it. Americans clearly are no
better at seeing reality than anybody else including the reality that we're
doing what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. What the trillions it's costing in
borrowed money will result in for us is yet to be seen. At least Murtha has
the presence of mind to see reality instead of jumping off a cliff chasing an
ideology.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/21/2006 12:37:12 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Irene. I don?t think Fromkin is considered an ?interpreter.? He?s a highly
respected historian as far as I know. As to McNamara, he and Johnson are
interesting psychological studies. I didn?t read his book, but I watched his
documentary. He?s a pitiful fellow ? as was Johnson. They both meant well but
that is another subject.
A difference between the Vietnam War and the War against Islamism is that the
former was part of a grand strategy developed during the Truman administration:
containment, opposing Communist takeovers wherever they occurred in the world.
This was a good strategy developed by George Kennan whom I have considerable
respect for. There is a strong argument that Kennan?s strategy was responsible
for our victory over the USSR during the Cold War. (See James Chace?s Acheson,
the Secretary of State who created the American World)
The War against the Islamists is a different matter. The nature of weaponry is
such that small paramilitary groups can do enormous damage. The strategy
devised by the Bush administration was to oppose go after the paramilitary
forces wherever possible, but also to go after their bases of operation. You?ll
notice from Saddam?s last speech that he noted Bush?s strategy of fighting
Islamists in the Middle East so we wouldn?t need to fight them on American
soil. He has resolved to mount a force and attack America on its own soil once
again. It remains to be seen whether he?ll be successful. Huge numbers of
Islamists have been killed in Iraq and we have been successful in tracking down
others elsewhere. We have also undermined support for Al Quaeda throughout the
world. There is evidence that Al Quaeda is finding it difficult and perhaps
not cost effective to mount an attack against America. It is much easier to
attack European cities and he may settle for that, but he may
not. He may mount an attack against the U.S. just to make the point that he
still can.
There were several Islamist attacks against America before 9/11. There is no
evidence that ignoring Al Quaeda has a benign effect on them. They are
marching to the ideology developed by Sayyid Qutb which has the ultimate goal
of world rule.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a hostile force in the midst of a hostile force
of Islamists. Part of the time they criticized him, but they admired his
defiance of the U.S. He made jokes of the U.N. resolutions and his forces shot
at British and American planes regularly as we overflew Iraq to make sure he
wasn?t sending his army against the Kurds or the Shiites in the South. It was
a necessary step in our war against Islamism to remove the Saddam?s Baathist
regime. The Islamists cannot afford to allow Iraq to become democratic. It is
a sizeable Arab nation in the midst of the Middle East, and if it does become a
successful democracy it will have a devastating effect on Islamist goals.
The Islamists have mounted potent propaganda attacks against the U.S. and its
efforts in Iraq. It is being abetted by the Leftists who have not become
reconciled to Liberal-Democracy after the fall of the USSR. An excellent
analysis of this strange marriage is David Horowitz? Unholy Alliance, Radical
Islam and the American Left.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:58 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Interpretations are interesting but they don't address the issue that we're
burying ourselves in debt in exchange for the opportunity to prove, again, that
we're not invincible. The Soviet Union did what we're doing. Do you remember
that Robert MacNamara was against invading Iraq? Why do you think he was
against it? It's good to know history, but it's also good to learn from it.
As is typical for the human race, we've learned nothing except an interesting,
albeit completely useless, bunch of facts.
Other related posts:
