SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Carragher who wrote (18357)12/2/2003 8:57:17 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793671
 
Pacifist fantasies

Baltimore Sun
By Joseph DiCarlo
December 2, 2003

EVERY DAY as I walk along west Towson's quiet, residential streets, I pass a sign in front of someone's house. Not one of the yard sale posters or lost dog notices often seen in this upscale suburban neighborhood, but a peace sign.
The sign is small and unobtrusive, yet still manages to look out of place in a community not known for much activism beyond reminding people to keep their dogs on leashes. Its purple background highlights a white dove holding an olive branch next to a large caption that states: "War is not the answer!"

I've never met the people who own this sign, but I've often wondered what message they want it to send.

Perhaps they mean to declare themselves pacifists who oppose any war regardless of its justification. Pacifism without the anti-Americanism that so often debases it can be a principled position. But it's one that strikes me as mindless. Are there no wars worth fighting? Even Catholic bishops, certainly no warmongers, would concede that some conflicts are justified.

But maybe my neighbors aren't pacifists at all. Maybe they're just pragmatists who believe that what happens within a country's borders is of little concern, as long as it poses no threat to us or our interests. In the case of Iraq, this realpolitik formula is simple: Despite Saddam Hussein's brutality, no hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction or Iraqi complicity in terrorism, no invasion.

Some thoughtful opponents of the war have articulated this position. But I suspect it's not what the sign is meant to convey. People who think carefully about their views usually don't express them with slogans. "Give peace a chance," "No blood for oil" and "War is not the answer" are not the signatures of a well-considered opinion. Instead, they are platitudes used as a substitute for thought by people whose politics often tack far left of the mainstream, people such as those in the Friends Committee for National Legislation, the creator of my neighbors' sign.

A survey of the articles posted on the FCNL's Web site reveals it to be a standard-issue pacifist group, long on criticism of the Bush administration but short on ideas anybody this side of Utopia would consider workable. Typical are the pronouncements of Joe Volk, the FCNL's executive secretary. To Mr. Volk, the real religious fanatics aren't in the Middle East, but in Washington in the persons of George W. Bush and John Ashcroft. Thus, the war in Afghanistan is Mr. Bush's "enactment of the biblical edict of an eye for an eye" and the invasion of Iraq his Manichean crusade of "good vs. evil." Meanwhile, back in the American "police state," Mr. Ashcroft, borrowing the "tactics of Joe McCarthy," darkly plots to "silence opponents of the war."

In the FCNL's policy papers, "terror," "terrorism" and "the war on terror" always appear in quotation marks, presumably to alert the reader to the author's skepticism about their validity. America's effort to combat terrorism, the result of its "obsession to defend itself since Sept. 11, 2001," is dismissed as just a "U.S. version of jihad."

If the FCNL's criticism of the administration lacks seriousness, its policy prescriptions are equally thin gruel. One searches these papers in vain for anything more substantial than such warmed-over radical boilerplate as calls for international peace commissions, U.N. arbitration of disputes and complete and unilateral disarmament. One paper laughably offers up Scandinavian resistance to Nazism as a lesson of the power of nonviolent resistance. (Memo to the FCNL: Allied blood and treasure defeated Hitler, not pacifism.)

Not surprisingly, the FCNL's papers also fail to discuss the rape, murder and unspeakable torture practiced by the former Iraqi regime. Nor do they acknowledge that the Iraqi people might just be better off for its removal. One gets the sense reading these articles that the Americans aren't liberators, but conquistadors gone to the Middle East for dominion and oil.

I doubt if my neighbors buy into all of this. They probably aren't anti-war zealots but gentle people, understandably concerned by the carnage they see every night on TV. I'm sure they sympathize with the troops, if not the cause, and probably wince, as most of us do, when there is news of a casualty.

But despite the FCNL's pacifist fantasies, "terrorism" is real, not just a contrived threat. So if war isn't the answer, I wish my neighbors would tell us what is. This might require some thought as well as a bigger sign. But I, for one, would stop and read it. After all, Towson's neighborhoods are pleasant to walk through this time of year.

sunspot.net



To: John Carragher who wrote (18357)12/2/2003 9:06:09 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793671
 
Managing Iraq
We can't continue this way.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen is Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.

It's not just our diplomats who do not believe we are in a real war. The Japanese victims of terrorists in Iraq on Saturday were headed for a meeting in Tikrit, to evaluate whether or not the power station there was a worthy recipient of aid. But since the Japanese refuse to acknowledge that they are participating in a war effort, they weren't particularly careful about security, so their car was not armored, they had no weapons with them, and so they were easy prey.

Add them to the growing list of scores of people who have died in Iraq because they assumed that the terrorists wouldn't confuse them with the evil Americans. This little conceit led to such folly as U.N. officers in Baghdad insisting that the Americans remove cement blocks from the approach to their offices, the Red Cross declining protection, and so on. It reminds me of a terrible story some years ago, about a very nice girl from southern California who went to South Africa to help the victims of apartheid. She, too, assumed that she would be protected by her innate goodness, and went to the wrong township one night. Her body was flown back to America a few days later.

This sort of foolishness would not have been possible in the days right after 9/11, but our instant understanding of the world after the terror attacks has long since been diluted by the usual triumph of old reflexes and bureaucratic emphasis on procedure at the expense of content. Thus, we seem not to know who is "behind" the killings (even though the Iranians, Saudis, and Syrians brag about it almost daily), and the Pentagon puts Paul Wolfowitz in one of the most dangerous buildings in Baghdad. Thus, we have Iraqi leaders who are clearly in great doubt about our seriousness and resolve. That, I take it, is the explanation of Ayatollah Sistani's recent catering to Iranian calls for the "Islamization" of Iraq, after devoting his life to the principle of separation of mosque and state.

Our diplomats are so intent on pretending that we can "work with" Iran, that they failed to take any serious steps to prevent the recent appeasement of the mullahs' covert nuclear program. If we had been serious, then Secretary Powell could have told his friend British Foreign Minister Jack Straw that it was a very bad idea to fly to Tehran with his French and German colleagues. Everybody knew that the trip was designed to cut a deal with the Islamic Republic, and once we failed to denounce it, we were trapped into proclamations of great joy at the toothless warning that came out of the United Nations nuclear crowd.

Meanwhile, the Turks caught the leader of the terrorist group that savaged Istanbul — sneaking into Iran. Imagine that.

It seems that the administration has decided to "manage" Iraq until Election Day, and then take stock of the situation. That, too, is a suicidal conceit, for no matter how marvelous our armed forces are, it gives the entire initiative to our enemies. And, as General Patton once remarked with his usual bitterness, fixed defenses are a tribute to the stupidity of the human mind. Yes, we are defending ourselves better, and yes, we are rounding up lots of bad guys, and yes, we are killing them in mounting numbers. All to the good. But the terrorists are looking at a target-rich environment, and we cannot defend all the targets.

Managing Iraq, which means taking it easy on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, also means condemning lots of people to death who could be saved if we waged war against our enemies.

Take Syria, for example. When the Israelis bombed a terrorist training camp in Syria a couple of months ago, we suddenly and unexpectedly heard things from the State Department that we had never heard before. They said that the Syrians had been unhelpful in the war against terrorism, whereas previously they had always said that the Syrians were helping, and that it was only a matter of time before good old Bashar Assad did what Powell, Assistant Secretary William J. Burns, and various intermediaries from good old Jim Baker down in Houston had asked: Cooperate with us.

If we were serious about waging war against our enemies, we would have put enormous pressure on the Syrians to shut down the network of terrorist facilities in Lebanon, and expel Hezbollah, which Deputy Secretary Armitage has called the most dangerous terrorist organization. But it was only words. Foggy Bottom's compulsive confession of failure after Israel's gesture quickly faded away, and we're back to "managing" the thing.

Take the Arab-Israeli matter, for another example. It is simply humiliating to see the State Department acting as if a deal conjured up by bunch of unelected and unrepresentative people from the PLO and a splinter group from Israel were somehow worthy of support. But instead of the back of our hand, it gets a drooling French kiss.

And all this in total defiance of the president's call for a democratic revolution in the Middle East! If we were serious about that, we would condemn the wildcat diplomacy of the unelected poseurs who are wasting time, and Swiss-government money (which probably means some secret subsidy from us) on the latest wasted effort to "solve" a problem that can only be properly addressed once the terror masters have been defeated.

No amount of presidential bravery, no number of magnificent speeches, can save the lives of our people and of our allies, and give the Middle East a hope for real peace, if we insist on "managing" the terrorist war and play pretend diplomacy, which is what we're doing these days. The terror masters know they must drive us out of Iraq. They know they must split off our allies. They believe the best way to do this is to kill more and more Americans, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese, South Koreans, Turks, Poles, and Iraqis.

They are not running for reelection, and they are not trying to be loved. They want to be feared.

Faster, please.
nationalreview.com



To: John Carragher who wrote (18357)12/4/2003 11:07:58 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793671
 

I have to differ that there are many people who cannot get sober on there own.

I agree. If he’d said “some people can’t get sober on their own”, I’d have no problem with that. If he’d said “many people”, I’d have no problem with that either. But “you can’t..” is wrong.

My main objection is to the notion of the alcoholic or addict “suffering” from a “disease”, as if this was something imposed by some outside agency. I object to this because it provides a device for the avoidance of individual responsibility for individual choices. There’s nothing wrong with asking for help, but self-pity and preaching don’t help much, IMO.

The notion of “recovering” status as a sort of status symbol, to be flaunted and preached about at every opportunity, is also a bit weird to me. It’s something you put behind you.