[lit-ideas] Re: Priorities
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:59:52 -0800
I am very much opposed to a pacifistic stance. Not only is it against
nature, it is against common sense. We fight, battle, and war to protect
ourselves, our families, and our nation. We always have and unless we
arrive at a World-Wide Social arrangement which eliminates the causes of
war, we always will. That we might be arriving at such a Kantian (via
Kojeve) World-Wide Social arrangement was what interested me in Francis
Fukuyama?s The End of History. But Huntington?s Clash of Civilizations
seems closer to current events, not to mention human nature.
Beyond that, if we were to seek to be governed by a quantification of war
such that we chose the course of action which would result in the fewest
ultimate casualties, I doubt that giving in to Islamists, Taliban, Al
Quaeda, Baathism, and Rogue-State dictatorships would be the choice we would
want to make.
During the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations, we did give in to aggressive
acts by the Islamists. We were attacked and chose not to respond. Did this
result in a quantifiable pacifistic net benefit? I don?t believe it did,
because it emboldened Osama bin Laden to greater and greater acts of
violence. Not standing up to him during the Clinton administration
emboldened him to destroy the World Trade Center which necessitated our
response in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We shouldn?t be quick to anger (it says in the New Testament), but neither
should we avoid answering a fool in accordance with his folly (it says in
Proverbs). Osama bin Laden was a fool to keep prodding the U.S. until he
finally got a response.
Dealing with OBL, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, Qhadaffi, and if
necessary Iran, and Pakistan before they use WMDs is prudent and represents
the greatest good for the greatest number. To be pacifistic and allow them
to ultimately do whatever they like would not in my opinion represent that
good.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven G. Cameron
**Are you not concerned with the loss of life, the personal sacrifices
necessary in this long-term, unpredictable engagement?? The Talmud states
that each person, each life is a universe... Would you volunteer your life,
your children's?? Would even Bentham agree?? Are our objectives pure
(Kant)??
TC,
/Steve Cameron, NJ
Lawrence Helm wrote:
> I suppose we could use the word "war," in several different ways, but in
> this case the matter was hinging off a statement I had made, namely that
our
> War in Iraq was extremely successful when compared to other major wars and
> that we suffered the fewest number of casualties of any major war.
>
>
> In regard to the insurgency, I'm sure the insurgents would claim they were
> in a war, but I doubt they'd claim it was a war of attrition because they
do
> not have big numbers on their side. Rather they would hope to stir up
> enough trouble to cause the U.S. to cut and run -- something the Middle
East
> had grown used to during the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations.
>
>
>
> Osama bin Laden hoped to involve the US in a long drawn-out war in
> Afghanistan. George Friedman (founder of Stratfor) in America?s Secret
War
> argues to that effect. OBL and Al Quaeda probably ?war game? as much as
> any military force, and they considered all the possibilities they could
> imagine and didn?t think they could lose in Afghanistan. What the US
> actually did there caught them and the Taliban by surprise. We can see by
> OBLs recent messages that he would be satisfied if we would get bogged
down
> in Iraq (he previously hoped to bog us down in Afghanistan). He urges the
> insurgents to keep on fighting.
>
>
>
> However, I?m convinced that OBL will be disappointed once again. Our
> fall-back position isn?t to hunker down and battle insurgents for years.
> Our fall-back position is to declare victory and leave. But this would
> result in a civil war, Shiite against Sunni that would probably keep
Middle
> Eastern nations and Islamists preoccupied for a good long while. By that
I
> mean getting the Shiites up to speed militarily and then saying ?good
luck,?
> and leaving. Many of the Shiites are holding grudges against the Sunnis
and
> if we left prematurely, they might well engage in a little ethnic
cleansing.
> That would take care of the insurgents rather quickly and neatly if it
> weren?t that the Syrians and other Sunnis would probably come to their
aid.
> Iran would be supportive of the Iraqi Shiites. Saudi Arabia hates the
> Shiites and would panic. They would open their coffers to pay for as much
> support of the Iraqi Sunnis as they could buy.
>
>
>
> Knowing that events could play out that way, we are trying to make sure
that
> there is a Democratic government in Iraq that guarantees rights for
Sunnis,
> Kurds and Shiites before we leave.
>
>
>
> Lawrence Helm
>
> San Jacinto
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven G. Cameron
>
>
>
>
>
> **Might this then (currently) qualify as a war of "attrition"??
>
>
>
> TC,
>
>
>
> /Steve Cameron, NJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
