| Submit your comments on this article |
| Olde Tyme Religion |
| The Gathering Storm |
| 2009-09-13 |
|
| Posted by:lotp |
| #10 "Islam is many nations, with varying ideas of right and wrong, though many align well with the traditions that breed terrorists." -there are many centers of gravity in varying degrees, and there are also critical vulnerabilities in the same. We need to find the low hanging fruit. Our own CV is that our people are too complacent and ignorant in a lot of cases to even realize there's a problem. I see a civil war as well. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-09-13 23:29 |
| #9 JR is correct that it's more difficult to strike back at Islamic terror, but we DO know who the financiers and supporters are. A spate of nasty and public deaths among Saooodi royals, Pak Generals, etc. would be my first start |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-09-13 15:37 |
| #8 Then he goes on to explain that we need to finish this thing started on 9/11, breaking the idea of Islam triumphant as we broke the idea of Germany triumphant (expressed by both the Kaiser and by Hitler) or Saddam Hussein triumphant. Europe, and European history are instructive but not actually the point of the piece. This is the most difficult thing to achieve. Germany was one nation, with a definite capital and a way to pound the people in it into submission. Islam is many nations, with varying ideas of right and wrong, though many align well with the traditions that breed terrorists. We need to be thoughtful in prosecuting this war against many nations. Yet we must not forget that we must defeat them, totally and without remorse. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2009-09-13 15:11 |
| #7 The writer's point is that wars must be pursued into the loser's heartland, visiting on him the destruction he visited on others, until he surrenders unconditionally. Only by breaking the idea that in some infinitesimally tiny way he won something -- anything at all -- will that war not have to be refought within a generation. He writes this explicitly: The Second World War was the unfinished business of the First World War; just as in our own time the second Iraq War was the unfinished business of the first. Then he goes on to explain that we need to finish this thing started on 9/11, breaking the idea of Islam triumphant as we broke the idea of Germany triumphant (expressed by both the Kaiser and by Hitler) or Saddam Hussein triumphant. Europe, and European history are instructive but not actually the point of the piece. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-09-13 14:58 |
| #6 Interesting that you write 'we' when you post from New Zealand, MoreScotch4Me. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-09-13 13:06 |
| #5 Great assessment Moose. This entire affair has deep roots indeed. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-13 11:52 |
| #4 Buchanan cited the 20th Century, but he should have begun with the less popularly well known 19th Century. In 1815, Europe had defeated Napoleon for the second time, in the first modern continental war. With peace came the reorganization of Europe, but it was the beginning of the end of the monarchical system of government. Europe was at peace for 33 years before the pressure had become unbearable. In 1848, democratic revolutions happened in the vast majority of European nations. Those that escaped had mostly democratized earlier. After these subsided, the royals fought back against the democrats with counterrevolution. Then the scene shifted to the United States, with its own Civil War. This led the US to discard Napoleonic tactics, which led the European armies to trench warfare in WWI. But then back to Europe, with the unification of Germany in 1871, on the heels of defeating France in the Franco-Prussian War. The unification changed the balance of power in Europe, and made World War I almost inevitable. This was so obvious that it started a massive military and naval buildup among all the powers. Much like the one we are seeing today. And for the first time, the US was at the forefront of doing this. After the turn of the century, Teddy Roosevelt mediated the Russo-Japanese War, with his Great White Fleet to enforce his decisions. Meanwhile, Britain and the other Asiatic and European powers re-aligned because of the Second Boer War in South Africa. The US remained the wild card in the European fight, seeing with some justification little difference between England, Germany, France, and the other major belligerents. But England had one major edge: control over the communications cable to the US. For this reason, pro-English and anti-German propaganda was all that was allowed through. The US quietly backed England, and though Germany warned the US to stop, it refused. So Germany began its policy of "unrestricted submarine warfare". The casus belli. So is everyone preparing for the next major war? It is likely, with the expectation of China vs. the US and India. But there are no certainties. Until the end of WWI, when it ceased to exist, most everyone assumed that the Austro-Hungarian empire would be the next major European belligerent. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-09-13 11:49 |
| #3 This was interesting a decade ago. Sorry, but it misses the point. Nobody cared then, and fewer yet care now. We're in bigger trouble now, and need to realize that Europe has its own issues to deal with, which they won't, except maybe the French, while we sink into civil war. Hate to say it, but it needs saying. |
| Posted by: Morescotch4me 2009-09-13 09:42 |
| #2 Not a fan of Buchanan, but this is an interesting article. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-13 05:40 |
| #1 Given the direction of Obama's America I'm not entirely certain whether our nation will stand with, or against, the forces of darkness when this storm finally breaks. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-09-13 03:18 |