[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:21:32 -0800
If you want to play word games and blame the lack of a definitive coherent
Militant Islamic definition on us, that may make you feel good, but it won't
get you very close to understanding. We didn't make the Middle East up. It
is what it is. We are just playing catch up trying to understand it - some
of us and deal with that part of it that comprises a threat.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:05 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
We took out Iraq to teach the 9/11'ers a lesson. That's pretty rogue.
Well, maybe botched rogue, a subcategory of rogue. See, if we didn't botch
the job it wouldn't matter that Saddam had no WMD and no ties to al Qaeda.
But, we did botch the job. Now Iran is a rogue nation. Is that better or
worse than being a botched rogue nation?
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Helm
Sent: Jan 12, 2007 11:52 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
Think of it this way, "war on terror" was a dumb term. People have been
looking for better terms ever since. Not even Bush uses it any more. When
I first began studying I encountered several terms and they all included
slightly different threats. There was no way our "war" could be against the
perpetrators of 9/11. They were a manifestation of the problem, and example
of it and not the entire problem. There were Rogue States and para-military
organizations garnering support from Rogue-States or operating independently
of them.
To simplify matters some of us now group the enemy under a rubric like
"Islamic Militantism." Others prefer the term Jihadist but these people are
inclined to think almost anyone innocent until someone gets killed. That's
taking a litigious approach rather than a military one. Those who use
"Islamic Militantism" or "Militant Islam" or "Radical Islam" are looking at
all of Islam and considering those agencies whether national, or
para-military who are representing a threat to the Free World, to allies of
ours or to ourselves. Note for example that at the present time, the chief
threat is not a para-military organization but a Rogue Nation, Iran.
You can't make up terms in advance and insist on them if they don't match
reality or if reality moves out from under them. For example, the term
"Islamism" was very popular amongst writers for awhile and then a number of
people identified themselves a "moderate Islamists," meaning they believed
everything the Jihadist-Islamists believed except for the violence.
This isn't about me. I'm not trying to have anything any which way. I'm
reading and studying trying to keep on top of what's happening. "War
against Terror" was Bush's inadequate term and even he has given it up. But
note that he never said his war against terror was just against the
perpetrators who were after all dead. It was against any who supported the
militant point of view.
Paul Berman the Liberal was the one who thought we ought to have declared
war against Saddam Hussein under the Clinton administration because he was
all of those attributes. We went to war against him because he was a major
player in the Militant Islamic war against the West. You need to read about
him to see what his desires were, what steps he took, what steps he was
taking to regain his independence from the sanctions, what he hoped to do
after the sanctions were removed. He was as Thomas Barnett said the
"Biggest Baddest actor in the region." Getting rid of him removed a major
hostile force in the Militant Islamic camp and it was hoped that a "new
order" would take away from the active militants and contribute to the
support of a more moderate approach to the free world.
As to their being bigger fish in the sea than Saddam, that wasn't true.
There was just Iraq and Iran that were big fish. Libya and Pakistan caved
in to a little State Department intimidation.
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------ 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:
