LB, I think that the real center of the problem is a conflict between militant fundamentalists, who want to "save" Islam by returning to "basics" and by restoring the "rightly guided" Caliphates of the old times -- and the more modern crowd. We were kind of dragged in into someone elses' religious war. But if we were dragged in, and if we are at war, we may as well take a side -- the moderates will understand, and if the extremists will get mad, so be it.
How can we win a war if we do not correctly define the enemy?
Politically correct blather and serious business like war do not mix. If something is amiss in the way the Administration makes its case for war, the public will notice that. I came to this conclusion long ago, and posted about it here and there... What follows is a quote from a recent article by Dr. Friedman of Stratfor. I saved the article, link below.
Wars are against enemies, and the commission makes the case that terrorism is not, by itself, a meaningful enemy. Rather, the enemy is -- according to the commission -- al Qaeda, and along with al Qaeda, radical Islam as an
ideology. That means that, from the commission's viewpoint, this is a war between the United States and al Qaeda or, alternatively, a war between the United States and radical Islam. Given the gingerly way in which Americans have approached the question of the nature of the enemy, it is striking that the commission honed in on what has been one of the few aspects of delicacy
in the Bush administration's approach to war -- completely rejecting the administration's attempt to subsume the war under the general rubric of terrorism.
Message 20375910 |
