How the West Could Lose -Daniel Pipes
After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists? Islamists might do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs: pacifism, self-hatred, complacency.
Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has widely taken hold that "there is no military solution"... But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions.
Self-hatred: Significant elements [in the West] believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins.
Complacency: The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine imbues many Westerners, especially on the left, with a feeling of disdain. Box cutters and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent. With John Kerry, too many dismiss terrorism as a mere "nuisance."
Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.
[New York Sun]
4 comments:
That's what I love about neo-conservative pundits. They are like little kids. They can't figure out anything on their own, beyond tax cuts for the wealthy, so it's just blame, blame, and blame. There's no endemic or destructive pacifism going on. From WWII, JFK standing up to the Russians and Clinton air-raiding Al-Qaeda, and Saddam when it was approrpriate as well as committing soldiers (and bringing them back safely) during the Bosnian crisis, Democrats, who like peace, sure, and actually value their kids lives after they are born, as opposed to Republicans that only seem concerned before theya re born, when the job needs to be done, and the fight--fought--Democrats lead the way. True, from Reagans invasion of Grenada, to Bush's missing Osama in Afghanistan so we could tie our military up in Iraq, to not get any WMD while allowing Iran toa ssert itself and its efforts for its own WMD, Republicans know how to fight also---just not very well. Unless you count, the excellent work we did securing the beach clubs, and rescuing the 15 medical students from their final exams in our liberation of Grenada. Everyone I know loves America, and all it stands for. They hate George W. Bush, because he does not really stand for American ideals, although his tactics (torture, muder, illegal surveilance of his own citizens) have a lot in common with Saddam Husseins ideals. Ooops, they just hung him! But Bush doesn't have to worry about that, as America will protect him better than he ever protected America. Complacency? You have to be a boob (hence writing for the New York Sun)to make that stretch. No one is complacent since 9/11. No one ignores the terrorist threat (few did before 9/11, except Bush and Cheney; ignoring the intelligence reports and Richard Clarke's educated opinions). Nonsense like this is just used as a smokescreen by people who have no solutions, or really any idea at all what to do, so they deflect the scrutiny. It is why things are as bad as they are, because the administration is not open to anyone else's viewpoint. The electorate understands this, and that is why they have chosen to vote in other viewpoints.
Dismissing Daniel Pipes [who has the singular distinction of having predicted 9/11] as a "boob" is, perhaps, imprudent.
Consider the impact of the following three [overly] influencial persons:
*Michael Moore: "there is no threat"...note that Moore's views on Israel are much worse than Carter's [see below]
*John Kerry: the threat is minimized as a "nuisance"
*Jimmy Carter, whose best selling book may lead to a movie deal, perhaps "Dancing With Terrorists" would be an appropriate title.
He does not have that distinction. The FBI and the CIA not only predicted it, but sent [paperwork to the Presdient discussing it. The failings of the Bush administration, are its failings alone, and di not make prophets of anyone else. Those quotes, as conservatives like to point out all the time, were taken out of context, however, unlike conservative quotes, the full text DOES change the meaning of the chosen quote.
Nah. The Moore quote is worse with context, not better.
The Kerry quote stands as a well documented flub [one of many] by a foolish man who is out of touch...his recent attempt at "humor" and his sickening visit to Syria [following the Baker recommendations] are excellent examples. His recent stopover in Iraq resulted in an embarrassing photo of Kerry sitting alone in the cafeteria. No soldier wanted to eat with him.
The Dems would be wise to distance themselves from Kerry, like they've done with Carter.
I know you don't like Bush. But the war against Islamic terror is more important than partisan hatreds.
You must not read much of the mush eminating from the far-left. If you did you may even agree with the Pipes piece.
Post a Comment