Friday, September 01, 2006
Fun's fun, but I'm done!
However I do get some time away this weekend in one of my favorite places to relax and get my bearings reset. Then next week its back to Japan and more insecurity........
Speaking of insecurity, I have been watching Bush on TV, using his "re-fighting World War II" approach. There are some who are in love with it. Others see it as the sham it really is. It does prove one thing for me that I already knew. Bush is every bit as political as Clinton was.
Lets look at his fundamental arguements:
1) If we fight terrorists in Iraq we won't fight them here.
First this assumes that the supply of terrorists is fixed and that they are not growing them in other locations besides Iraq. The empical evidence says that is not the case. Fed by Islam and its misguided ideals, terrorists are being spawned every year. The London plot confirms that. So using American troops as flypaper only applies salve to one open would, while being cut elsewhere.
2) Any one who opposes the war in Iraq is an appeaser.
Once again, a flawed conclusion. Look, if you truly care about the US, then you want the US to be in a position to win in the long run. Problem is, that as Bush has defined it, terrorism will one day be elimnated. I don't see how. Short of the return of the Prince of Peace, people around the world are inclined to scheme and work against each other. So its like crime, it is still with us. One can, however, work to make it hard or impossible to penetrate the shell of our lives. That's why I agree with James Fallows, framing the prevention of terrorism as a war actually makes it harder to create the desired end state.
3) This struggle is the same as the struggle in World War II.
Not really. World War II was war between nation states for the dominon of territory. Facism was an expression of the nation state. Terroists are not nation states. They exist in a shadowy nether world, connectd by the Internet, and operating inside the normal society. The better analogy of the war in Iraq is the Suez war of 1956. A great power invaded an Arab nation to get rid of a dictator. In the process it got more than it bargained for.
4) This war is not about religion
Oh yes it is. Islam is the one common thread of the terrorists. Islam feeds this disease. So rather than attack the symptoms of the disease, perhaps we should be framing this in its proper context: this struggle is between people who believe in the dignity of man and those who listen to the flawed words of a stupid Arab 1300 years ago.
Then again it is tough to take on a philospohy that enslaves 1/3 of the world's population. Which again begs the question of why this administration is not more prudent in picking its fights.
Bottom line? The war in Iraq, was an optional detour that is hurting the overall effort of the US in the long run. That's not similar to World War II.