[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:32:37 -0800
Irene hasn't read or perhaps hasn't understood the note she is ostensibly
responding to, the one in which I said I wasn't interested in quibbles about
how best to fight the war as long as we continued fighting it; so I won't
abet her unwillingness to understand by commenting upon her quibbles, but
will instead address some underlying matters.
There is considerable evidence that the "majority" of Islam (something we
have pursued here on Lit-Ideas from time to time) is fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists share the goals of the extremists except for the one
involving violence. It is simplistic to think we don't have to worry about
an Islamic Fundamentalist majority. It is from this majority that Al Quaeda
and other such organizations recruit. But it was never just the
paramilitary Jihadists that presented a direct threat to our interests.
Several hostile Islamic states hovered on the edge of just such directness:
Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Iran were the primary ones. Perhaps they
have seen cause in recent years to pull back slightly from that edge.
Many of the people referring to Al Quaeda don't understand them. Al Quaeda
did not expect effective opposition. Osama argued (see Osama's readily
available speeches, many of which were posted here) that the US would not be
able to stand against his fierce warriors -- that his Jihad was
irresistible. So it is absurd to say that it is only our resistance to Al
Quaeda that causes Al Quaeda. To say such things is to foster a mindless
political slogan. It doesn't take much study to realize how false it is. I
wonder why more people in this vaunted information age don't avail
themselves of more accurate information about Al Quaeda.
What is the danger of Leftism today? They represent a political position
that is largely anti-American. In any conflict, they side with the enemies
of the US. They make excuses for the enemy's excesses and find ways to
blame the US for them. Something the US did caused these enemies to be
enemies. They have abandoned the traditional American viewpoint that our
nation is the best that the human race has yet produced. The US is
eminently worthy of being defended. No other nation compares to it. If one
is American, patriotism is a good thing.
If people from some other nation disagree and favor their own nation, that
is only to be expected. It is a natural thing to do, but if citizens here
in the US abandon their patriotism and oppose the nation that nurtures them,
that is unnatural and represents something that can only be described as
pathological. If you are an American citizen, and seek America's defeat,
you are suffering from something pathological. If you don't want us to
defend your nation but instead side with its enemies, you are suffering from
a pathological temperament. Surely if this pathology spreads widely enough
in our nation, it will succeed in accomplishing its goal: the destruction of
the body it infects.
But perhaps we are too strong to have to worry about a little national
sickness in some of our coastal backwaters? Perhaps. As long as they are
back there some place out of the way and screaming invective at those
attempting to perform their duty by opposing our enemies, they do little
harm. It is only if they were to come forward and swing around in front of
us beside our enemies that we might need to take them more seriously. They
say that we have created all of our enemies and should, they imply, not take
action against them for something we caused. I say that if they spend
enough time siding with the enemy, the time may come when those of us who
are more traditional can no longer tell the difference between them and our
enemy. The time may come when those on the front lines are told, "Don't
worry about it. If someone shoots at you, shoot back. We'll worry about
which nation to bury them in later on."
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:53 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
Lawrence, the enemy isn't Islam. The enemy is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda thrives
on war and chaos, which is what we gave them. That old Leftist Herbert Bush
didn't invade because he knew exactly this would happen. Leftist Baker says
in so many words that he used to be repeatedly asked why they didn't go into
Baghdad, and he's no longer asked that. If you're going to point fingers at
"Leftists" you have to name names. So far, we have two: Bush Sr., James
Baker. Who else? You're looking ahead to 2008. How about 2002-2006?
Leftists the way you use it is tantamount to bogieman. Just a word that
means "someone messed it up". Bogieman, Everyman, Leftist. They're all
synonyms, since there are never any names attached to them. It's
interesting that you say, "just as long as you keep fighting". Fighting is
exactly what al Qaeda thrives on. That was the Baker Commission's point,
the fighting is going nowhere ("grave and deteriorating"). Time to start
talking would you say?
Other related posts:
