Thursday, June 22, 2006

Anti-War Position

Someone raised a good point that if we knew in 2003 where we would be today, with respect to Iraq, would we have supported the war? The answer, implicit in the question, is "of course not." I myself have to admit, it's a tough question.

But what if you reframe it? Would you take where we are today after September 12, 2001? I should certainly say yes.

And for those who supported the initial war, but a year ago decided we should be pulling out, do you believe we are in a better position today that we would have been had we pulled out, with Zarqawi alive and claiming victory?

What we need in Iraq is a victory. A humiliation of the forces of Islamic Fundamentalism. They need to be driven out of relevance.

1 comment:

Greg said...

First, my point is that there is a need to fight Islamic Fundamentalism and the totalitarian governments which allow and help it spawn. This is not my need. This is a need of the civilized world.

Now, the question for reasonable people, is how to fight it?

Your counsel is patience. I agree. I know the fight is going to be long and hard, partially military, but mostly about persuading the Muslim world towards a more secular, democratic future.

But in order for this future to occur, there needs to be signs of progress and success. Partially for people like me, who simply like success, but also for would-be terrorists and fundamentalists who need to factor in fighting on a losing side in their calculations.

I want Zarqawi's replacement to know he's going to be killed by US forces. Sure, they still will be able to find replacements willing to die that way, but I have to imagine in the long run, this factor tips the scales in our favor.

Now with repect to the Soviet analogy and starving...

I don't think it is worth allowing Islamic Fundamentalism to grow, unchecked by US power, into an ideology with enough territory to be deterrable. The Soviet's were deterrable because they had something to lose. I do not want to concede territory and power to the Islamic Fundamentalists, so they become deterrable.

The problem is - corrupt ideologies don't necessarily starve themselves to death. Totalitarian communism starved itself to death, yes, after the deaths of 40 million plus Russians. But certainly Nazi facism didn't starve itself...and for all of the opportunities for the past 80 plus years, Islamic Fundamentalism wasn't starving itself. In fact, it seemed to me to be gaining in power and prestige.

And yes, we should co-opt fundamentalists into a democratic government. Let them engage in a debate. That I know they will lose. How do we deal with fundamentalists in this coutry? Sure, they are allowed to run for office, and participate in the government....they just lose. That's my perfect vision of Iraq in the future, the fundamentalists can try to persuade people. They won't. If they turn violent, the Iraqis arrest them or kill them.