[lit-ideas] Re: Defending Offense.
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:14:45 -0800
I think your first point, "false pretenses," isn't accurate. It is true we
didn't know as well as we thought we did what they had, but there were
several reasons for invading Iraq. See Stratfor's George Friedman's book on
some of the issues that haven't been covered in the press.
As to your last point, we need to continue to oppose the "insurgents" which
consist of Ba'athist Sunnis and infiltrators from Iran. Many of the Iraqi
Sunni insurgents are disillusioned with the Islamists who came through Iran
to join them -- to some extent for the benefit of Iran.
Do you blame America and the Iraqi forces for opposing the insurgents which
given their heavy support from Iran probably aren't deserving of that
designation? Leaders in Iran are afraid that if democracy takes hold in
Iraq that their own regime is in danger. Let us keep fighting the Iranian
infiltrators and hope that their regime is in danger.
Ilan Berman, in his Tehran Rising writes that the Tehran leadership and army
want nuclear weapons. But at the same time Berman writes of an between 50%
& 70% of the nation that wishes to see the present repressive regime
overthrown. I don't know if democracy will succeed in Iraq, but it is vital
that we do everything possible to promote that. A democratic Iraq would
provide an enormous incentive to those in Iran who would like to be out from
under that tyranny.
Letting things drift and go on as they are in order to avoid deaths can in
the long run cause many more deaths. By not preempting Hitler (and while
the U.S. wasn't in a position to do that although they should have been,
Britain and France were) millions of deaths were incurred in WWII. The same
thing is true of the war with Japan. The U.S. wanted to be peaceful and
didn't have a very large military force. This encouraged that Japanese to
think they could defeat us. Preparing for war and engaging in preemptive
war when necessary could have resulted in a much lower number of deaths than
actually occurred.
Now, largely because of the asymmetric warfare being conducted by Islamists
as well as their potential access to WMDs, preemption is prudent. We are
considering it now in regard to Iran. Iran is the nation that is most
supportive of terrorist organizations. If they get nuclear weapons will
they give them to organizations like Hezbollah? They have given Hezbollah
thousands of missiles, and there is no reason to think Iran won't give them
and other Terrorist organizations any weapons they want from Iran's arsenal.
Can we afford not to preempt Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons? I say
no, but it would seem that we in the U.S. and in Europe are letting the
matter of Iran drift; which will mean that they will obtain nuclear weapons
and that terrorists will become better equipped than they have ever been
before. If that happens, the terrorists' attacks and the resultant belated
dealing with them and their national supplier will be bloodier and more
devastating than if we were to engage in a preemptive strike against Iran's
nuclear facilities now. I am quite convinced of that, but perhaps we in the
US & in Europe need to see a bit more of what happens when we let such
opportunities slip away. We don't seem to be able to get worked up unless
we've got a Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 in our very recent past.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of P.H.Lundbech
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:32 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Defending Offense.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:37:41 -0800, "Lawrence Helm"
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I don't believe you have this right.
Don't I? The war was, after all, presented to us all in the UN as
a search for weapons of mass destruction ... et cetera ...
I just cannot accept the fact, that civilian victims killed in a
war started on false pretenses are dismissed as 'accidental'
deaths.
>The Islamists say we are too concerned and therefore don't have the stomach
>for bloody battle that the Islamists do. This causes them to believe
>they'll win in the long run. And I tend to think they have something
there.
I can follow you on this and you do have a point. I believe the
weakness shown by many politicians (and others) in the current
cartoon affair is a symptom of the same illness.
>Our preoccupation with avoiding causalities and collateral damage doesn't
>keep our mind and heart in the business of defeating one of the most brutal
>and insensitive enemies we've ever encountered.
On the other hand, inflicting more casualties isn't necessary a
solution. There are other ways to stand firm on one's beliefs.
P. H. Lundbech
Odense, DK.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
