| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| GOP: From Nation-Builders to Ideologue-Crushers? |
| 2007-03-18 |
| by Kathleen Parker It's time for some honest dialogue about the war. As presidential candidates try to stake out an electable position on the war in Iraq, Americans are justified in wondering: Is it reality, or is it just politics? Can anyone's judgment be trusted during an election cycle? Dem simplicists are playing politics. My read of the Bush administration is that they are adapting to more realistic notions of the possibility of civilizing the Muslim rat-holes. A majority misunderstood the Muslim menace, so finger pointing is hardly reasonable. Only a Republican victory will ensure that the Ayatollahs are not handed the Middle East oil patch, as did Jimmy Carter hand deliver Iran to the robed beasts. Some measure of comfort may be found in the dual reality that is Washington. What you see on TV isn't necessarily what you get away from the cameras. Off the set, honest discussions about Iraq and the war on terror have a different tone and content than one might expect based on the gibbering of talking heads. Even pundits are sometimes of a different mind off-camera than on. There's no underestimating the power of peer pressure in the green room. Serious people, in fact, are increasingly concerned that our media-driven political environment makes honest debate impossible. Iraq has become a case in point. Is bringing home the troops in our national security interest, or is it merely politically comfortable and expedient? Behind closed doors, more-honest debates are taking place among Republicans and Democrats, led in part by members of the recently resurrected Committee on the Present Danger. Its Tom Clancyish title is not far removed from its purpose, which is to strategically fight the bad guys - through education and advocacy rather than espionage. Members include such familiar names as Sens. (and honorary co-chairs) Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and the co-chairs, former CIA Director James Woolsey and former Secretary of State George P. Shultz. Among international members are Jose Maria Aznar, former prime minister of Spain, and Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic. (For more information, go to fightingterror.org) They are "Clash" ideologues, and not nation-builders. However, I don't believe that the Clinton mentality, that led to the betrayal of the Serbs, has been shaken by the leading Dems. A bi-partisan consensus won't happen. Originally formed in the 1950s as a bipartisan education and advocacy group to deal with Soviet expansionism, the committee was reorganized early this year to address the global threat of "Islamist totalitarianism" - the committee's new name for our enemy. Part of the committee's concern has been the Bush administration's failure both to adequately communicate our mission and to properly name the enemy. Our war is not against "terror," but against a specific enemy - a virulent, religion-based ideology... "Failure"? There has been a clear change in direction of the Bush administration, toward fighting Muslim aggression, rather than detaching Muslim terrorists from the Wahabist and Khomeinist mosques that create them, and speaking of an ambiguous enemy: "terrorists." We are fighting Wahabist and Khomeinist operatives. And we should be killing them by the tens of thousands. Shelve the smart bombs, and bring out the Napalm. |
| Posted by:Sneaze |
| #3 Excalibur: I forgot to mention the Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood). Polls suggest that only 30% of Americans dislike Muslim/Islam. The truth of inherent Muslim aggression is not getting out there. The majority assumes that Muslims are like everybody else. They believe that because they don't understand the Koran, with its supremacist ideology. |
| Posted by: Sneaze 2007-03-18 11:28 |
| #2 Survey says! We are fighting Wahabist and Khomeinist operatives. And we should be killing them by the tens of thousands. Shelve the smart bombs, and bring out the Napalm. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-03-18 07:49 |
| #1 Unless there's something about the details or lineage that I missed, this is the third incarnation of the Committee. Perhaps its best known version was in the late 70s, when it sprang up to ring the bell about Soviet strategic nukyler and general military ambitions. As a young and stupid buck, I was generally dismissive of their concerns. Not they were vindicated in every way, but their basic premise that the Soviets had to be confronted proved fairly sensible. Pretty impressive line-up of members - while Woolsey has inexplicably fallen hard for the economically and strategically illiterate chimera of energy independence, he seems very solid on the big questions of the day. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-18 00:58 |