[lit-ideas] Re: What should we call this war?
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:19:35 -0800
Stan,
Maybe we can't have a serious discussion; we'll see. That the Left is
siding with the Islamists is too well known to dispute. I read the
Islamists regularly and read some of the same assertions here. Call that an
indictment and I won't disagree. I don't know where everyone stands
politically. Robert Paul has told me more than once that I should make a
greater distinction between his Liberal view and the views of the Leftists,
and I have been trying to do that, but that there are Leftists prominently
presenting their Leftism in the Media is also beyond dispute. That I
encounter some of those same arguments here may be disputed but it is
nevertheless true. That Leftists are not patriotic is by definition also
true. When I say Leftism, I think of people like Ward Churchill in America
and Benny Morris in Israel.
As to our not being able to afford this war, I don't think that is true.
Congress votes the money for the war, not the white house. I think we
should fight this war even if we can't afford it, because the alternative is
extinction. But I think we can afford it.
I don't know where you stand on the political spectrum, but I see some
democratic slogans in your litany, e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy which is
one of their more misleading slogans. The tax cuts were across the board,
for everyone. Democrats argued that the Rich should be excluded. That
slogan is true in the sense that the tax cuts were for everyone including
the Rich, but in Logic, if memory serves me, this is called "slanting." It
is a fallacy in the sense that it implies, or at least is ambiguous enough
for someone to imply that only the Rich get the tax cuts.
Also, I've spent some time studying France's economy, especially contrasted
with the American. I've been looking into the question of whether the
French Welfare system benefits the people it proposes to benefit as much as
our system which doesn't guarantee the same package of entitlements that the
French get. I find that the French system doesn't measure up. France has
more poor, more unemployed, and a much worse economy, and they aren't even
fight a war. I don't think there is any reason to consider the idea of
Welfare in a vacuum. We don't need to wonder what it would be like with a
more elaborate package of entitlements. We have plenty of European nations
trying to outdo each other in this regard. Do they work? I don't think
there is evidence that they work as well as our system which does provide
benefits but in a more cautious way.
[Notice how quickly we get away from the issue of the war here as well.
Maybe there are a number of reasons why people don't want to discuss it. I
know what the Leftist's reasons are, but I don't know what everyone's reason
is. Iran is working hard to disrupt Democracy in Iraq. It is working hard
to obtain nuclear weapons, but are Americans to the Left of Center (not
Leftists but not Republicans) willing to give up their Bush-bashing to look
into the matter? I don't see evidence of that. Talk about doing something
serious like bombing their nukes the way Israel bombed the Iraqi nukes at
Osririk in 1981, and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth for the
poor innocent Iranians.]
But back to the economy. When I say I haven't studied it, I mean it is not
my focus, but I have read a bit in passing.
As to cuts for education, I don't see evidence of that either. There is a
grass roots movement toward home-schooling because there is widespread
dissatisfaction with the sort of education the State (whether big State or
individual little States) provide our children. It takes a lot of effort
for a mother to educate a child, but huge numbers of mothers are doing just
that because they have no confidence in the State-provided education. Big
Brother has fallen down on the job and mothers (lots of them) are looking
for alternatives. Holding teachers to standards and demanding results,
sounds like a good idea to a lot of us.
As to Ravaging the environment, I have heard no mention of that. I live in
Southern California and have daughters in Northern Idaho, a sister in
Colorado, a sister-in-law in Tucson and a friend in Raleigh and haven't
heard of any environments being ravaged. I know Bush would like to tap into
Alaskan oil, but I don't think he's gotten approval for that yet, so that
environment remains to be ravaged.
As to the RX program for the elderly, which my wife and I are, we have had
our prescriptions reduced in price. If it takes paying part of the
pharmaceutical bill out of the national coffers, I suppose that is the
nature of Welfare. France does it as well. In fact, much more so.
As to Civil Liberties, yes I hear a lot of crying about that, but did you
know that FDR ordered the reading of all mail going out of or into the U.S.
during WWII? Some precautions are necessary. The Bush precautions, trying
to listen to Terrorists and the people they transmit messages to, don't seem
enough to me. I think more precautions should be taken not less.
Wars have to be approved by Congress. A president might engage in a limited
"Police Action" like Truman did in Korea, but if he wants it to be a war
he's got to go to congress to get the money to pay for it. Congress has
approved this War. They continue to approve it. They may quibble about how
it's being fought, but they believe we should fight it. Congress also
believes we have enough money to fight this war. They hold the purse
strings, Democrats as well as Republicans, and I notice that Democrats as
well as the Republicans are putting plenty of pork in this current budget.
The sky doesn't really seem to be falling - at least I don't see anyone in
congress looking up.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stan Spiegel
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:33 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What should we call this war?
Lawrence: To a large extent the message train, "who do you support in this
war?" didn't result in a serious discussion. After 9/11 I discussed at
excruciatingly great length how we were at war with Islamists and not
terrorists. The old-timers are intimately familiar with that discussion and
are bent on jerking me around rather than respond seriously. If I get
side-tracked into saying again what I said back in 2002 then I won't keep
asking them who they are supporting in this war. The discussion has moved
away from my question into a quibble.
SS: The problem is your question wasn't a question. It was an indictment.
Asking "Who are you supporting in this war?" is an insulting question. It
doesn't merit serious discussion because you act like you're the only
thoughtful person and patriot here. You even have the audacity to call
people who disagree with you "anti-American." Is it any wonder why this
became a shouting match?
You once admitted that you haven't paid much attention to what's going on on
the domestic front. Unless you pay attention to both, you won't understand
some of the reasons why many of us are against this war. This White House
has drained the federal treasury -- pushed the poor, the disabled and
handicapped off their welfare programs, cut benefits for veterans, cut
education (the biggest cut in its history), ravaged the environment, set up
an RX pgm for the elderly which is largely a welfare program for
pharmaceutical companies, lies to us at every turn, makes decisions without
consulting with Congress (the Dubai Ports deal, for example), yet continues
to make massive tax cuts for the very wealthy. Our country, our civil
liberties, our freedoms are at risk because of this president and this war
-- which is an excuse by conservatives -- as I see it -- to transform the
federal govt into a single-purpose entity: war and defense. All the other
programs are going down the drain from FDR's programs to the Great Society.
And you're not paying attention to that?
How can we all have a serious discussion with you when you have such a
limited perspective?
Stan Spiegel
Portland, ME
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:29 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] What should we call this war?
To a large extent the message train, "who do you support in this war?"
didn't result in a serious discussion. After 9/11 I discussed at
excruciatingly great length how we were at war with Islamists and not
terrorists. The old-timers are intimately familiar with that discussion and
are bent on jerking me around rather than respond seriously. If I get
side-tracked into saying again what I said back in 2002 then I won't keep
asking them who they are supporting in this war. The discussion has moved
away from my question into a quibble.
The quibble is interesting, but it deserves a different title; so I've given
it one.
The Bush administration probably didn't want to declare War against Militant
Islam, aka Islamism, aka Fundamentalist Islam because it would sound too
much like we were going to war against a religion. The Islamists could
declare, as have anyway, that we are taking up the Christian Crusade once
again.
The Islamist ideology is well known. I described it recently (once again)
and so won't do it in this note. The Shiite Islamists using Khomeini's
ideology want to export their "Revolution" until they achieve a Pan-Muslim
ummah; however the element not to be compromised (for Shiite Iran) is a
strong Iran. If Iran becomes strong enough then the Revolution can be
exported in accordance with Khomeini's original intent.
The Sunni Islamists are also taking what they can get in the Middle East but
their goal is the World and not just an Ummah in the Middle East; at least
that is the goal that Sayyid Qutb voiced.
My impression is that Iran while hoping to export their revolution, is
taking a stance like Stalinist Russia. They have a nation they feel they
can make strong. If they can get nuclear weapons then no one will have the
courage to thwart them; they can then concentrate more securely on exporting
their Revolution. They understand the lesson of Saddam quite well. He
made his move toward a Pan-Islamic State before he got his nuclear weapons
and the U.S. stopped him. Iran has been much more cautious.
The Sunni Islamists strike me as taking a Trotskyite approach. For them,
there is no one nation to be preserved, no mother Russia. For them there
are no national boundaries, only the ummah and they have the ability to
launch attacks from many parts of it.
The tactic the Islamists (both Shiite and Sunni) use is asymmetric warfare.
They use modern explosives and inexpensive true-believing transporters to
deliver their weapons. They cannot deliver serious attacks against military
installations, but they can terrorize civilians in virtually any nation.
And the civilians pay for the wars their militaries fight. The civilians
are far more timid than the military; which is something the Islamists have
long known. They will be the ones begging their politicians to put a stop
to the attacks; whatever it takes. We have seen the effects. For example,
a hard-line Spanish leader was removed from office because the Spanish
civilians wanted the Islamists to quit attacking them. The new Spanish
leader was much softer on Islamism.
Something like this went on during the Cold War. We said we were fighting
Communism. We were fighting the ideology that inspired the Communist
revolution in Russia, and we were fighting against a similar sort of tactic.
Communists would infiltrate a nation, contact the Wretched of the Earth, and
attempt to get them to overthrow their government. This sort of revolution,
an Islamist Revolution, was to be the first step in creating a unified
Ummah, but it only succeeded in one nation, Iran. The Islamists had high
hopes for other nations, but nothing else has succeeded. So the Islamist
Revolution has not gone as well as the Islamists of either hue had hoped.
But days are still young, and the confused decadent West may allow Iran to
get its nuclear weapons. Iran is prepared to show the world that they know
how to use them. I don't mean they will actually use them. They will use
them to force the West to leave them alone while they engage in some serious
Revolution exportation. They aren't hurrying to get their nukes with any
hope of matching the American arsenal. All they want is to follow the North
Korean plan. They feel nukes will make them invulnerable to American
interference. They are in a very different environment from North Korea,
however, which is an Asian pariah. Iran is not a pariah. It is in the
midst of significant sympathy - lots of Arab Islamists who share similar
views, and since Khomeini, Iran has been downplaying the difference between
Shiism and Sunnism. Iran has the means and experience to export their
Revolution big time if only they can keep the U.S. from invading them the
way they invaded Iraq. So this war is against Islamism in the same way the
Cold War was against Communism.
Another similarity with the Cold War is that our press has been preempted.
It has taken sides with the enemy, but with far less justification. In the
West there was a love affair with Marxism and the Soviet state that
epitomized the Marxist ideal. Many retained that love even when Stalin
destroyed it for most Western intellectuals. It was transformed into a more
acceptable form, that emotion, during the Vietnam War because there was no
need to demand a love for Communism, only a hate for the opposers of
Communism. That hate, perhaps was not based on anything capable of
analytical justification and so remained available. It could be reawakened
by this new opponent of the West, the Islamists.
The propagandists don't need a coherent argument that stands up to analysis.
They just need an event that puts the West in a bad light. They can then
promote the event as though it stands for the entire West, its attitudes,
its mores. We have seen the same approach being used for the Islamist
cause: the flushing down the toilet of a Koran, a few soldiers messing with
prisoners in Abu Ghraib, a few cartoons. It is enough . . . but is it? The
Abu Ghraib business was in keeping with the Communist cause celebre, but a
Koran going down a toilet in Guantanamo and some cartoons in Denmark? The
old Leftists can't really get their teeth into cartoons. The burning of
embassies over cartoons is too alien for even the most confirmed Leftist.
The Islamists may be hurting an important part of their base with such
tomfoolery. Unfortunately for the Islamists, they can't help it. They were
converted to Fundamentalist Islam and they are now True Believers. Such
matters as the cartoons may eventually cause the Leftists to give up on
them. We shall have to wait and see.
Like the writer of the "Gramscian Damage" article, I think the West will
eventually win, but it is much too soon to be sure of that. We have a bunch
of weapons we can't use, and the populace is verrrrrryyyy slow to recognize
that we are at war. And the War we are fighting isn't like the old wars so
they don't like it. And the Leftists among them never accepted the
anti-Communist view; so that parallel does more harm than good. This
populace is well-fed, spoiled, petulant and not at all cooperative. Who are
these Islamists? We don't see any stinking Islamists? We don't believe
there are any. It might take a long time to get past all of that. Thus,
the Islamists have a chance - not a very good one - but a chance.
So what should we call this war? We should call it the War against
Islamism. They have banged much more than a shoe against a table as they
promised to bury us.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Teemu Pyyluoma
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:17 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Who are you supporting in this war?
Let's start with some definitions, as the discussion
is too muddied.
War
a) War is a military action.
b) State of War means that the government has powers
not available to it in peace time. At a state war,
rights can be suspended, citizens may be enlisted to
fight the war, property like trucks and ships can be
placed under military command and so on.
Both are necessary but neither alone is a sufficient
condition for war.
Terror
a) Violent attacks, usually on civilians.
b) Designed to spread panic, terrorize, and thus
sometimes called an attack on the mind.
Once again both are necessary but neither alone is a
sufficient condition for terror.
So war on terror is a total war that will not be won
as long as terror exists, meaning that the war will
never end. Which means that exceptional government
powers will become the norm.
So the question that should be asked is whether
terrorism is the kind of threat that requires
permanently altering the society and removing safe
guards on government power?
People often evaluate threats based on either
intentions of would be attackers or the potential
impact of the threat. This is wrong in both counts,
wrong as in trying to fit a square peg in a round hole
and not as in cheating on your wife is wrong.
That there are people hell bent on destroying this or
that civilization is inevitable and irrelevant. The
question to ask is whether they are capable of doing
that. AQ may want to invade Andalusia, but can they
take on the Spanish army and the entire NATO in a war
of invasion?
Furthermore, it shows lack of imagination to fixate on
a single potentially devastating threat. Once we get
to very low probability scenarios (like a nuclear
attack on Manhattan), the scenarios multiply
correspondingly. Manhattan could also be destroyed
by an industrial accident, say a catastrophical
chemical leak on a ship in East River, ebola outbreak,
massive fire, earthquake, tsunami, meteor strike,
riots, etc. Safety regulations and authorities,
medical systems, fire department and fire safety
regulations, intelligence services and police, exist
to counter these threats and mitigate the damages, and
are (should be?) provided resources accordingly.
One ought to remember that as a cause of loss of human
life and other damages, terrorism probably ranks well
below lightning strikes. Thus a total response, a war
is not justified by it.
One more thing about preventive strikes. That
counter-attack is by far the most effective defense is
obvious and well understood. Should for example
President of USA discover that there is a terrorist
training camp in Algeria, there is no question that he
should order an attack on it, preferably in
co-ordination with the Algerian government. But the
problem with the doctrine of prevention is that it
takes for granted that there are targets, it is like
insisting that your opponent show up 9 AM on third
Monday of the month to a battlefield of your choice in
case they want to fight a war.
The strength of small scale, low budget terrorism is
that it is very difficult to detect the terrorists in
advance. A discussion on whether we have the will to
strike at them when found is completely beside the
point, which is can we find them?
Yours,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________________________
Other related posts:
