Articles

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Least We Can Do

The one thing that Hagel, Kerry and Brennan all have in common, besides being Washington insiders, is that they all agree that terrorism is basically a misunderstanding. All three fancy themselves men of the world who know more than the peasants back home because they have spent a few days being shepherded through high level meetings in Brussels, Riyadh and Beijing.

They have spent decades marinating in talking points and they know, for example, that terrorism is due to poverty and that Islamic terrorists aren't really Muslim, they just try to convince us that they are to trick us into going to war with Islam. Most of all they know that we can't beat the terrorists on the battlefield, all we can hope to do is wage a war for their hearts and minds, empowering moderates by resolving grievances until the extremists are discredited and peace reigns on earth.

Every word of it is nonsense, but national policy runs on nonsense. In the last four years the government has run massive deficits to save the economy, compelled everyone to buy health insurance to fix health care and flirted with minting a trillion dollar coin to cover its debts. A policy's obvious ridiculousness only ranks it higher in the estimation of idiots insiders who confuse stupidity with out-of-the-box thinking.

Whether it's domestic crime or the international rise of a terrorist movement, the left clings to its sociological security blanket explaining everything in terms of poverty and disenfranchisement. It doesn't matter to the idiot left whether they are dealing with gangs in Oakland, Marxist terrorists in Nicaragua, drug dealers in Chicago, Communist guerrillas in Vietnam, race riots in New York or Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan; to them it's all reducible to the same tired formula of Imperialism + Capitalism = Poverty and Resistance to be solved with day care centers and grievance commissions.

Leftists love moving to Chicago slums, Afghan caves or Latin American peasant villages, living with the natives, struggling with their toilets and finding deep spiritual meaning in their simple lives. And despite learning to speak their language, badly, and taking enough photos of them to populate a museum, they invariably leave without a clue about who the locals are and what makes them tick. But that's because they assume that they already know what makes them tick. Oppression. And with that covered, they never bother to learn anything of more significance than a greeting and a goodbye.

The one indispensable word that the left uses to explain all the violence is "Misunderstood." Criminals and terrorists aren't bad... they're misunderstood. We think that they're threatening and they think that we're threatening. We think that they're attacking us, but they're really just defending themselves. We think that they want to destroy us, but they just really want us to live up to our ideals.

According to John Kerry, the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas were both misunderstood. We thought that they were Communist terrorists, when really it was we who forced them to become terrorists and Communists. Since then Kerry has continued discovering other misunderstood people, including Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad, and will go on discovering them on a freelance basis.

Liberal misunderstanders take a look at almost any atrocity, and sigh wearily and ask, with the patience of saints, "Don't you understand that we made them do it?"

The Taliban didn't want to go to war with us, but we made them do it because we refused to work with them to extradite Bin Laden. Bin Laden didn't want to go to war with us, but we made him do it by defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam. Saddam Hussein didn't want to invade Kuwait, we made him do it and then we made him pretend that he had WMDs because we made him afraid of us.

By the time the ball of twine is fully unwound, we discover that no one in history ever wanted to fight us, but we made them do it by refusing to do the right thing or by doing the wrong thing and thereby throwing the whole picture out of whack leaving them with no choice but to do what they did. And all of it was just blowback from looting the world of its oil and diamonds and turning it into markets for our products. And when we weren't stealing diamonds and oil, then we were starting wars just so the military-industrial complex could bill the government for some more $145 screwdrivers.

The people who think this way aren't just some smelly hippies sunning themselves at a protest rally; they're the next Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director of the United States.

John Brennan knows that you can't beat terrorists on the battlefield. So does John Kerry. And so does Chuck Hagel. And two Johns and a Chuck can't be wrong. Neither could Vyacheslav, as in Vyacheslav Molotov, Stalin's Foreign Minister, who said, during the tenure of the Hitler-Stalin pact, that, "Everyone can see that an ideology cannot be destroyed by force...Thus it is not only senseless, it is criminal to wage such a war as a war for 'the destruction of Hitlerism,' under the false flag of a struggle for democracy."

Hitlerism was destroyed by force and war. Islamism could be destroyed by force and war, or at the very least by not sending it billions of dollars, but our leaders are much too wise for such a policy. Instead they sign their own Hitler-Stalin pacts and then act surprised when 'Hitler' overruns their mission in Benghazi and kills everyone he can get his hands on.

Liberals face the same divide on foreign policy that they did on crime which splits them between the appeasers and the radicals. The radicals wanted to dismantle the police forces while the appeasers only wanted to neuter them and have them police the streets as gently as possible. Terrorism brings out the same policy instincts in them. The radicals ally with the terrorists, going off to visit them in Gaza and Pakistan, while the appeasers figure out how to fight them as little as possible.

Sending remote drones to kill terrorist leaders is the least we can do short of doing nothing at all, which is why the radicals object to it. The difference between the radicals and the appeasers is that the radicals believe that we are 100 percent wrong... while the appeasers assume that we are only 60 to 70 percent wrong. That gives them a 30 or 40 percent worth of moral elbow room which they can use to arrest drug dealers and snipe at Al Qaeda leaders.

But what both radicals and appeasers have in common is that they don't believe that fighting the war will actually accomplish anything. The appeasers fight it as a formality, for political reasons or as part of some grand chess game for isolating the "extremists". They're no more committed to it than Obama was to his Afghanistan surge. It's always a ploy, a positioning maneuver that will discredit the enemy and force them to come to terms. War to them is just peace negotiations by other means. And when they realize that the peace negotiations aren't happening, they give up on the war.

War to liberals is a strategy for gracefully conceding a losing argument. They don't believe in the war itself, which they feel only happened as a result of a series of mistakes and violations by us. What they would like to do is wind it down at a peace conference where everyone admits they were wrong and shakes hands eager to move on with the business of opening gay bars in Kandahar.  And if they can't think of a way to win the peace, then they have no interest in winning the war.

The essence of the "Hearts and Minds" dogma is a denial that wars can be won in any sphere other than the social context. Wars on poverty can be won, but not wars on people. Once you begin fighting the Nazis, the Viet Cong or Al Qaeda... then you have already lost. Even if you win, the people are bound to rise up and then you'll be stuck playing occupying imperialist. And that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when armies are neutered to lose battles while wining hearts and minds, getting stuck in the middle and losing both kinds of wars.

Our three new leading foreign policy figures who will be expected to advance American interests around the world are different, but they are basically the same. They have that blank distant look of dimwitted men who fancy themselves intelligent, They think that the talking points that they have borrowed from the Saudis explain everything and the war is a chess game that we can win if we just outmaneuver the misunderstood terrorist Islamist by aiding the misunderstood political Islamists proving once and for all that you don't need to fight to take over a country, you can just run for office.

Stalin could not comprehend that German tanks were headed his way, no matter how many Soviet agents passed along the word. Liberals, whether they come from Massachusetts or Nebraska, are similarly unable to understand that the planes really are headed for them. They have gotten too bogged down in thinking of this as a war of ideas, of ideologies, where they are always more right than we are, to see that this war isn't about us, it's about them.

This isn't a war of ideas, at least not the kind that we can play a part in. Islamic theological debates are as abstract and irrelevant to us as Communist debates over the finer points of Historical Materialism. It can be helpful to understand them if you're making a detailed study of the enemy, but most wars really come down to a group expanding its power and territory through conquest. It can't be won by making Al Qaeda look bad with some Saudi inspired "Hearts and Minds" campaign. It can only be won on the battlefield.

Kerry, Hagel and Brennan are men of nuance. They know better than to try and win wars by winning them. Instead they believe that we can only win by losing, triumphing through appeasement and securing a permanent peace by letting ourselves get kicked around while fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. They are not interested in what we can do to win, but in the least we can do to wait out the war until the inevitable force of progressivism finally reaches deep into Kandahar, Riyadh and Tehran bringing with it gay bars, mandatory abortion coverage and the brotherhood of all mankind.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

This piece is another wonderful exposition of the insanity of liberalism. Unfortunately when the insane ultimately go down they will drag a lot of rational people with them.

AG said...

Well the one other thing these people always seem to have in common is that they always seem to be infected by the anti-Semite virus. There has to be more than just a coincidence to that.

Shlomo ben Shmuel said...

"By the time the ball of twine is fully unwound, we discover that no one in history ever wanted to fight us, but we made them do it by refusing to do the right thing or by doing the wrong thing and thereby throwing the whole picture out of whack leaving them with no choice but to do what they did. And all of it was just blowback from looting the world of its oil and diamonds and turning it into markets for our products. And when we weren't stealing diamonds and oil, then we were starting wars just so the military-industrial complex could bill the government for some more $145 screwdrivers."

It becomes very clear why the "progressives" are among the leaders of current anti-Semitism. For example, if in your paragraph quoted above, the words "we" or "our" are replaced by "the Jews", that paragraph could come straight from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

TL Winslow said...

I'm starting to blame Obama on the New Age. It's the New Age mindset that there is no Devil or Hell, just God and you, and your misunderstandings that separate you. This causes New Agers to deny all reality until they die, after which they don't care. Of course they deny death, or rather, are already dead. The ultimate is that Course in Miracles by Helen Schucman that Oprah featured in 2008, gaining 2 million suckers.

In retrospect, that's what helped Obama go over the top. Now the whole country is run by those who deny reality and are already dead :)

http://historyscoper.com/newagehistoryscope.html

http://historyscoper.com/obamascope.html

http://historyscoper.com/muslimscope.html


Dennis Latham said...

I think you hit the nail on the head, but Liberals will not take the blame for anything so they won't say they forced you into writing such an article. They may say everyone else is responsible for all the wrongs in the world but never themselves. They will have to say you are a crazy terrorist who has no respect for anything. They will delve into your past and find an incident where you fed squirrels and said something like "come here, squirrel." They will then say, "don't listen to him because he talks to squirrels. He is crazy." Liberals will kill children in the womb, but will let serial killers avoid the death penalty because it's horrible. You can't reason with idiots. Especially, rich Liberal idiots.

Dov Kalisch said...

"It's the New Age mindset that there is no Devil or Hell"
Jewish belief doesn't consider a 'devil' either or a hell people are consigned to forever.

The media helped Obama over the top with fawning and worship.

Elisandra said...

About 30 years ago I went through my "New Age" phase, and most of what I read was along the lines that God isn't separate from us, that we ARE God, and we create our reality by our thoughts and feelings. Which I determined was a load of hooey and gave up interest in it.

Interesting that those who believe that people create their own reality are the ones blaming other people for causing yet other people to become criminals. Yet, we who believe there IS a God, are the ones who put the responsiblity of becoming criminals on the person who became a criminal.

Rita said...

http://littlenotesfromparis.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/obamas-new-defence-trinity.html

;)

Thank you !

Anonymous said...

The only people they think are misunderstood are Muslims. For instance they do not think Hindus are misunderstood as they have no problem demonizing Hindus in every sphere and every way from academia to media etc.... It is selective whom they use kid gloves on versus who they utterly demonized.

Anonymous said...

The idea of the devil and hell was as someone else mentioned not from Judaism. It was influence from Persian Zoroastrianism. http://freetruth.50webs.org/B1a.htm

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

This is wildly off topic, but within traditional Judaism, Satan is a sort of 'prosecutor' who denounces within the letter of the law while G-d supersedes him and grants mercy, rather than a force of evil

sheik yer'mami said...

"terrorism is due to poverty and that Islamic terrorists aren't really Muslim, they just try to convince us that they are to trick us into going to war with Islam."

I know the Klintoons the Obama's and their ilk are pushing this absurdity, but I'm afraid they're not that stupid. They believe we are stupid enough to believe it.

I really think there's something more at stake here, like Islamisation and one world government.

The progressives are deranged enough to believe in a UN government, and they are fanatical enough to wreck the existing order to bring it about.



Becky said...

"terrorism is due to poverty" and abortion is due to poverty and gang violence is due to poverty and ...

I disagree strongly that we should not consider one fine theological point...

And that would be the point of whether or not man has free will. Is he a moral agent? Or just a captive of his genetic code as it is being expressed in a specific environment? This is what the Left takes from science to apply to all others always, but to apply only to themselves when they need it to escape responsibility. It is their privately-played get-out-of-jail-free card.

Islam teaches there is no such thing as free will as we understand it in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And this has a whole host of implications, and resides at the heart of why we are not to insult the Prophet within earshot of anyone else -- because we are not to cause others to question Islam. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and surely the Caliphate will be here before you know it.

Yes, it would be nice to say: this free will distinction is irrelevant, let's just win the war on terror, we can preserve our freedoms here within our own four walls.

But the President just told the whole world in September that the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet: cool it with the videos, kids! Yo, First Amendment: go to the back of the bus!

So a "fine" theological point unwinds to a huge impact on our freedoms, starting with freedom of speech, which is freedom to question, to hear all sides, to... choose. To exercise your free will. To be a moral agent.

The Left, like Imams, want to tell the people what to do. They conceive of man as animal.

Post a Comment