RoR: Forum

The real reason to vote for Bush: self-immolation.

Post 1

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 1:37am

Mr. Pappas,

I don't know where to begin. You made so many valid points that I would be hard pressed to pick any single point as the most important. There was one line in your article that I believe captures the overall spirit of the more 'rabid' Bush haters, it reads:

The very idea of acting in our self-interest – which is the right moral motivation – is anathema to the Left and suspect to many others.

You also made a statement that I believe capture’s an underlying and unspoken reality of the Iraq invasion, it reads:

Even the positioning of our military on this particular sand dune by taking out the local tyrant puts us in the center of evil: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

In many ways the liberation of Iraq was far more of a strategic decision than a political one. But, it is no longer possible in our society to overthrow a tyrant for purely "strategic" reasons. And the rationales given begin to take on the distorted shape that they often do. That Iraq was a threat to our nations interest and security is a given. That Iraq was not the main threat is also true. What is lost in all this are the strategic options that become available by having Iraq as a base of operations, and the grand-strategic goals that our being sought.

One often hears the President speak of how a “free democratic Iraq in the heart of the middle-east would be a terrible blow to the terrorist”. The implication is that the example of such an Iraq may have the indirect result of fostering anti-theocratic/totalitarian sentiment in her neighbors. One can argue the degree to which this may be true, but one cannot argue the logic of it. In a grand-strategic sense it is the equivalent of placing states like Iran and Syria on the defensive; a defensive position from their own populace. A democratic Iraq works as an undermining influence on their neighbors.

Even the most modest of reforms in a nation like Iran can result in devastating consequences to theocrats and terrorist. We are not speaking here of Iran suddenly becoming a western style democracy. But if an Iran even began to slightly approach a transitional stage towards a system such as the one that exist in Turkey or even Egypt, it would be a great leap in the right direction, and a terrible blow to international terrorism.

The war on terror is not simply a military war, but a social-political one as well. Some nations will have to be taken by outright seizure, others by stealth, and others by a slow process of demoralization; most by a combination of all 3. In many ways this war mirrors the Cold War to a far greater degree than many assume.

Bush is often derided as having approached this war with an out of date “Cold-War” method. That derision stems primarily from the fact that the Cold War was a generational war fought on innumerable fronts, with a myriad of tactics. His opposition would like to treat it a ‘criminal’ problem, and on a case-by-case basis.

The overwhelming hatred and negative response of most of the world’s governments towards us is more than understandable. In a world filled with vicious little tyrannies, an America that has rededicated itself in its role as the spreader of freedom and hope is a thing that frightens them.

Once Communism fell, but prior to the 9-11 attacks, America had basically abdicated that role. The evil empire was gone, and the vicious little tyrannies were seen as relics that would fade away in time. If there is a ‘sin’ for which America is guilty, it was for that assumption. Unopposed and unfettered, those vicious little tyrannies evolved into a tremendous threat to our civilization. 9-11 was the culmination of what occurs when “good men do nothing”.

Ayn Rand once said that she liked the phrase ‘God Bless America’, not in any religious manner, but in the sense of the sentiment that lay behind the use of that phrase. So I will end this overly long response to your article by conveying those same sentiments. Thanks for your article Jason. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. .

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 10/26, 1:44am)

Post 2

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 8:01am

George,

I am not sure that the Cold War analogy is a good one here. In the Cold War, America had a very clearly defined state enemy in the USSR with whom we could engage and negotiate (if needed). This is clearly not the case with the Islamists, and I think this is a major difference.

Also, Soviet communism was a much greater threat to our way of life than Islamism is today. Communism is a Western ideology which is highly exportable, and in fact, a substantial portion of people in the non-Soviet West agreed (and still do) with the basic the basic tenets of Marxism. In the 1960's, there were several radical Marxist student movements looking to overthrow the US from within, and these groups received material support from the USSR. Soviet expansionism seriously threatened the ideological foundations of American society.

To the contrary, the Wahabi Islam being touted by al Queada is generally deemed repulsive by the typical Westerner. There is thus no risk of America being overrun by Islamic ideology and thus becoming a Taliban-like outpost of the Muslim world. In fact, the only ideas that are even remotely similar to those of Islamic theocracy in America are heard from voices on the religious Right, and guess which Presidential candidate they want in office....

(Edited by Pete on 10/26, 8:03am)

Post 3

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 12:55pm

Pete,

You stated that, "In the Cold War, America had a very clearly defined state enemy in the USSR with whom we could engage and negotiate (if needed). This is clearly not the case with the Islamists, and I think this is a major difference."

In this war too we have (or should have) clearly defined enemies in those states that sponer and harbor terrorism. Also, we already have engaged and negotiated with some of those states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and now the liberated Afghanistan). My analogy to the Cold War was to point out that like that war, this one will be generational and ultimately have to be won by wearing down and demorilizing the enemy from within. The end of any sugnificant threat from terror will be the result of an Islamic reformation similar to the one that took Christianity from the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment. The Cold War was won in the same fashion, not by destroying the tenents of Communism/Socialsm, but by the implosion that occured when the majorty of the populace under these systems rejected its orthodox application.

You stated, "Also, Soviet communism was a much greater threat to our way of life than Islamism is today. Communism is a Western ideology which is highly exportable, and in fact, a substantial portion of people in the non-Soviet West agreed (and still do) with the basic the basic tenets of Marxism. ".

This is true, Communism was a greater threat to our way of life, but - it was a lesser threat to our life itself. At the peak of the Cold War the United States had over 1500 Soviet ICBMs pointed at her, and yet she was safer then than she would be now if even a single 'suitcase' type atomic weapon fell in the hands of a Al Qaeda or Hamas. For all its inherent evil, Soviet Communism was still a child of the West, albeit a bastard child. Islamism being so completely foriegn to our way of life and values, has no choice but the path of extreme violence.

Lastly, you stated, "In fact, the only ideas that are even remotely similar to those of Islamic theocracy in America are heard from voices on the religious Right,..."

This is an enormous leap that can only be made by a purposeful distortion or melding of facts. It reminds me of someone making a 'Hitler' analogy to compare some modern day policy that does not even remotely come close to a Hitlerian doctrine and action. Notwithstanding a handful and miniscule minority of Christians whose dogmas are similar to your Taliban analogy, comparisons between American Christians or Christian Conservatism with Islamicism is tanamount to comparing being sent to Nazi concentration camp to the American internment of prisoners at Guantanamo.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 10/26, 1:06pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 11:51pm

Many bad things would happen under a President Kerry. But many horrible things have happened under the Bush presidency. This is a regime that has exploded government power at a pace. Just once I would like to see one of the Bush supporters write something like:

It is true that he has expanded the budget at twice the rate of Clinton, that he has created the largest and most powerful new federal bureaucracy since the WW2, that he has imposed costly protectionist legislation, that he keeps prisoners of war in violation of international law, that he lied about Iraq, that he is personally responsible for the deaths of 1,100 US soldiers, and 15,000+ Iraqi civilians, that his war has inspired terrorism around the world, and that another four years of this can only mean more loss of liberty and more bloodshed. And yet, I support his reelection for fear of Kerry

Post 5

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 6:02pm

Thanks, George for the encouragement, appreciation and intelligent comments. You’re right, of course, a multi-pronged approach is required. And, of course, as part of that we need the right intellectual and moral leadership. You have the right attitude and spirit; keep up the good work.

Post 6

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 9:31pm