Web Guy writes:
“Save our military for real threats. And if some nut blows up a skyscraper in a metropolis on one of the coasts, the lives lost will be much less than the numbers lost from annual traffic deaths. If Bush were really concerned about “democracy”, why does he let Israel attack neighboring democracies in Palestine and Lebanon?” — WebGuy; WDH Forum
An interesting perspective that is perhaps quite telling.
It would appear that Web Guy counts himself as among that group that does not view Islamist jihadism (aka Islamist terrorism) as a legitimate “threat”.
Presumably then, he is one in agreement with John Edward’s assertion that the “War on Terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker”.
If global Islamo-fascist jihad is “not a threat” worthy of the efforts of our military to combat, then just exactly WHAT does Web Guy legitimately consider to be a threat that calls for a military?
Perhaps Web Guy is only being sarcastic when he implys that the occasional jihadic “nut job” blowing up skyscrapers and public buildings is acceptable and tolerable.
Since he also went on the say that (as rationale) hey, at least “it won’t be in Wisconsin”, he perhaps presumes that the problem would STAY on the coast – and that besides, it’s no skin off his nose what happens elsewhere.
He apparently presumes, of course, that gang crime and terrorism are “coastal” anomolies, that will not find there way here.
Oops – that’s right – we already have gang-related crime. Well, maybe the jihadists are different from gangs, and prefer ocean breezes.
The deaths from the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 were 2403 killed, including 68 civilians. 1178 were wounded. Two-thirds of these casualties occurred within the first 15 minutes of the attack.
Since Pearl Harbor was a remote naval base on a far-off territorial island, presumbably Web Guy considers that attack to have been an insufficient reason for a military response. We should have perhaps “saved” our military forces for a “real” threat, and finished going after Hitler first.
Roughly 56 MILLION people died world-wide as a result of WWII, including an estimated 17 million who died as a result of Japanese territorial conquests and policies of extermination from 1931 to 1945 – and over 6 million who died as a result of Hitler’s genocidal attempt to exterminate the Jews in Europe and the Middle East, after his rise to power in 1933.
Obviously, by Web Guy’s (and other’s) logic, there was no global “threat” UNTIL the US began to fight in WWII. Our participation then was also certainly used as a tool for propaganda, recruitment, and training.
While I’m sure that there are those in Lebanon and in the Palestinian-occupied territories who would disagree, Israel did not wage a war in 2006 against Lebanon. At worst, Israel engaged in a massive trans-border incursion, in order to counter and eliminate an active threat from Hezbolla jihadists, who were using ungoverned safe-haven areas of the Israel-Lebanon border region to launch missile attacks and raids into Israel.
Had the “world” not intervened (again), it is very likely that the Israelis would have succeeded.
As for the Palestinian territories, quite the same situation exists. Given the inability (and possible lack of desire) of the Palestinian leadership to eliminate the jihadist militias operating within it’s borders, the Israeli’s would be quite justified in annexing those territories outright, leveling them, and starting over.
To their credit – or perhaps folly, the Israeli’s continue to absorb ongoing attacks and casualties, all in the interests of “promoting peace”, and peaceful co-existence, with those who have taken an oath to exterminate them, and to “push them into the sea”.
Finally, Web Guy’s characterization of terms such as “appeasement” and “surrender” as being effectively “so last century”, and thus somehow invalid, itself reflects a WWII perspective in that his thesis seems to be that the concept of “surrender” requires that there be a cohesive nationalistic body to surrender TO.
We do not have to have the jihadist equivalent of meeting with Cornwallis at Yorktown, or a meeting with MacArthur on the USS Missouri, handing over our swords, in order for a “surrender” to occur.
We only have to quit the fight.
In 1938, a meeting held by representatives of the major powers of Europe with representatives of Hitler’s Nazi Germany in Munich, attempted to avoid the prospects of war by agreeing to cede the Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia to Germany, leading to then-British Prime Minister’s now-notorious declaration of achieving “peace in our time”, and becoming the quintessential example of the foolishness of attempting to appease dictators, despots, and thugs of any stripe.
Generally avoiding foreign wars and entanglements is certainly a wise course. It was especially so in the early years of the republic, when George Washington remarked during his Farewell Address, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is – in extending our commercial relations – to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
According to Ralph Raico, (The Case for an America First Foreign Policy) Washington’s outlook involved three main principles.
First, we would engage in mutually beneficial, peaceful commerce with the rest of the world, but “forcing nothing,” as Washington made a point of adding. Second, while trading with them, we would avoid entanglements in their political affairs and their quarrels with other nations. Finally, we would always remain strong enough to defend ourselves from attack.
The greatest desire of the founders at the time, was simply to be “left alone” by the rest of the world, to live in freedom and to practice the principles of human liberty and republican self-government.
According to Raico, the monarchies of the Old World were little more than massive war machines, endlessly exploiting the people to fund their never-ending conflicts, and the military and civilian bureaucracies those conflicts necessitated.
Those nations, and rulers, were dedicated to pomp and glory and to the power of the state, writes Raico.
The view of the early founders, he continues, was that in order to forestall high taxes, debt, and the centralization of state power, we had to steer clear of war.
That is why, says Raico, the advice of the Founders was: if you want to preserve the system we have established, keep out of wars except when required to defend the United States, and avoid political entanglements overseas, since these are likely to lead us into war.
Raico is clearly in agreement with those who similarly express a more modern-day isolationist view. And he makes some good points.
Some things have changed since those early days, however. While the founders had, in addition to their strongly libertarian philosophy of strictly limited government, legitimate practical fears that petty foreign entanglements would endanger the very survival of the new and very weak republic, “avoiding” such involvements does not mean that you always can, or should.
Simply sitting behind the barricades, and waiting for the “screaming hoards” to come swarming over the hill, is not always the best or most effective defensive strategy.
As a nation and a people ostensibly dedicated to the principles of individual liberty and human freedom, we should alway be slow to anger, and slow to war.
Once endeavoring to undertake that challenge however, the only meaningful course open is to strongly follow through, and succeed in that endeavor.
Roosevelt used the analogy, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick”. General Colin Powell famously put it a slightly different way: “speak softly, be slow to anger, but when the time comes use overwhelming force.”
Or as Peter Brookes once wrote, regarding the art of aircraft carrier diplomacy: “Without firing a single shot, the presence of 4.5 acres of floating, sovereign American territory off the coast has made more than one foreign leader think twice about acting foolishly.”
