We skipped my usual Monday appearance because yesterday was 9/11, so I’m on this morning, at he usual 10:20am ET (7:20am PT).
At this stage word is we’ll discuss the president’s speech last night, and whether or not Iraq is truly tied to our security. The fact that I even have to answer that question this late in the war is distressing. And frankly, the president did not do a good job last night. The bottom line is, He is not going to ever be able to make the connection between Iraq and its relationship with the enemy unless and until he’s willing to name the enemy.
He did so when he briefly referred to Islamist Fascists months ago. Have you noticed, after the Saudis complained (they, too are the enemy), he never used that phrase again? As long as he is unwilling to name the enemy, he will never be able to adequately explain how and why the entire Middle East, i.e. the foundation of Islam and the fascists who now control it, must be dealt with.
The remarkable thing here, is his strategy is correct. We do not need to think about wiping out Islam to defeat the enemy–we do need to democratize the Middle East, giving the people control, which should isolate and marginalize fascists. Once people get freedom, they like it. Fascists, of course, by their very definition, require totalitarian control.
For those who say I’m wrong, and it’s Islam that needs to be wiped away and how all this is folly, I’ll use WWII as an example. We did not need to “wipe away” all Germans or Japanese to win that war. Yes, we needed to defeat them completely, but we also forced democracy on them and forced the Japanese to westernize. But there is also one other thing we did to both countries that today’s bending to political correctness precludes–banning state religion.
With the Japanese, we banned Shinto, and the with Germans we banned Nazism (which, of course, was the worship of Hitler and so-called Aryanism). When it comes to the Middle East, the equivalent for Afghanistan and Iraq would not to ban Islam, but to require a secular government, secular constitutions, and to ban the Wahabbist (the modern Shinto/Nazi problem) sect/interpretation/practice of Islam.
There’s no wonder the president seems unable to explain the importance of the larger WoT, and the importance of being in Iraq. Not being able (willing) to name the enemy in WWII would have also kept us from taking Germany. Imagine fighting a war against “fascism” but refusing to acknowledge the German base. if we were just fighting “fascists” who just by coincidence happen to be German, wouldn’t it have been impossible to invade Germany? Of course.
Unfortunately, with the president’s performance last night, I now believe it will take another, even more horrificattack than 9/11 to make this nation, and the world, face what’s truly at stake, and finally confront this 21sty century menace.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Tammy … I think that while the President is still on the right track, he has been somewhat neutered by the PC hordes of the international community. Every time he tells it like it is, I’m sure the State Dept (feckless thought it may be) receives complaints from their embassies around the world who are horrified … HORRIFIED by the “inflammatory islamophobic cowboy-like xenophobic blah blah blah” rhetoric from GWB.
I really appreciate the fact that people like yourself, Michele Malkin, and Charles Johnson’s “Lizard Nation” are there for us.
PC is going to kill us all if we don’t reject it in favor of truth telling.
Ok, Stalin was one of our allies in WWII, in our fight against Nazi Germany. And it was Hitler and the Nazi government we were fighting (not necessarily fascism). After the war we purged the Nazi Party members and worked with the regular German people to rebuild the society. There are lots of fascist government all over the world but they don’t necessarily export terrorism simply because they are fascist. My point is that what makes the terrorists evil is the acts they commit, not what ideological doctrine they spew. Why are we hung up on what we call the terrorists anyway.
Tammy, I do agree with your assessment of the situation.
I agree with the assessment of the Lieutenant Col. in the attached.
http://michaelyon-online.com/media/pdf/vox/Proceedings_12_05.pdf
In both cases, the bottom line, IMO, is that we need to outsmart these facists at their own game. Once the Iraqi people, and the ME peoples as a whole see that the US is promoting a better life for them, they can have no choice but to select good over evil.
In time, the fundamental facists will be out numbered and destroyed by their own folly. Key word – TIME. We have to be steadfast and patient.
I think that your WWII analogy works up to a point. However one major difference between WWII and the WoT is the fact that during WWII the fascism manifested itself in the form of a legitimate government in both Germany and Japan and their armies. I think this makes the enemy easier to identify for most people. I think this is part of why there seems to be so little expressed opposition to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afganistan (the other reason being that the war was fought for the most part via proxy).
I think your absolutely correct about the need for the President to name the enemy. But if the PC culture has taught us anything it is that he also needs to fight for control of the definition of “islamic fascism”. (I think I remember reading something you wrote about how the left is redefining words?) I think the President should use that label but also define it everytime.
You must log in to post a comment.