Was this a war against bin Laden?

Or is it a war against jihad?

That depends on whether bin Laden is dead. If he's dead, the "war" is over. If he's alive, then Bush is an idiot and we're in a war we'll never win but which the Democrats would have won by really going after bin Laden.

The Anchoress has an excellent post on this debate:

The ugly truth no one wants to admit, particularly within the left, is that this enemy is going to keep coming and coming at us…when we take one out, another will -for a while yet - be able to step up into his place. When we foil one ring, another will be just about ready to attack. While we’re cleaning out one rat’s nest, three more are being formed. That is why this is going to be a decades-long effort, no matter WHO gets into the WH in a few years, and no matter how much some would like to pretend that all of this is simply George W. Bush’s doing, because - you know - terrorism never existed before he got into office, or before he went to Iraq.
(Indirectly, via Glenn Reynolds' link to Stephen Spruiell.)

Little wonder that Kerry wanted to narrow the focus of the war to bin Laden. As a focus-narrower for people who'd prefer to wish the war out of existence, bin Laden is merely convenient. If he's alive, Bush isn't prosecuting the war because he's doing the NeoCons' bidding by chasing imaginary demons in Iraq. And if he's dead, not only is the war over, but the whole thing was a big waste of time.

Whether he's actually dead, who knows? I rejoiced in the death of Zarqawi, and I'll be delighted by the death of bin Laden. But these are not ancient Nazis hiding in the jungles of Brazil. The deaths of individual jihadists do not end their murderous "religious" philosophy. Until that philosophy is defeated and discredited, guys like Zarqawi, bin Laden, and Zawahiri will be as replaceable as copies of Sayyid Qutb's rantings.

MORE: The debate over "who did more" -- or who "should have" done more -- about capturing bin Laden (typified by the fuss over the Clinton interview with Chris Wallace) serves to perpetuate the idea that this war is all about bin Laden.

UPDATE: Thank you Glenn Reynolds, and welcome all. I'm especially delighted to be Instalanched in the same post which links these trenchant observations (from a "libertarian and former atheist"):

The leader of AQ, cowering in fear off in some godforsaken place, dies of an easy to treat ailment. I don't know if it's true, but it does seem fitting.

May his heart have turned before he died and may his followers turn theirs as well.

If he did die that way, it's not all that unlike the ignominious drowning death of Josef Mengele. While I'd prefer to see justice being done by way of executions, it's also true that such evil people do not deserve any arguable hint of martyrdom or glory. Typhoid fever is about right.

MORE: The full video (a portion of which I linked above) is here. (Via Glenn Reynolds, who has a roundup of links and reactions, and wonders aloud, "why did he respond the way he did?"

I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess. Instead of looking angry in the ordinarily emotional way, I think Clinton looked angry in a deliberate, almost satyr-like way. Coupled with the personal insults and deliberate finger poking at Wallace, I think his target audience might have been the people Bill deems unstable, and in need of a psychological push over the edge in the hope that they'll miscalculate. You know, the folks who think Hillary is worse than Satan, whom he knows will be watching Fox. (Context, indeed!)

Not that any tantrum -- real or theatrical -- would work with the text-and-link oriented blogosphere, but that's another, far more complicated issue.

(I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the outburst will prove unwise.)

posted by Eric on 09.24.06 at 08:01 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4038






Comments

The West cannot win this war against militant islam. We can try to change the political and perhaps religious climate in those countries. This is what Bush is doing (and why on earth the Democrats and our "allies" aren't helping with this is beyond me.) The Pope is putting his life on the line -literally- to engage their religious leaders in a dialogue which may bear fruit about a century from now. We can perhaps force a democratic direction which may or may not take root - sort of like you force a card in bridge. But - only Islam and the people of those islamic countries can purge themselves of these violent radicals. It does'nt look good.

lizwez   ·  September 24, 2006 02:19 PM

Actually, the West can win. But it will take multiple devastating attacks from the Muhammaden Religion of Peace (death toll at least 50k) and a link to state sponsorship to trigger a reasonable (but not proportionate) response.

If you study the Quran (Verse of the Sword) and the Islamic culture (honor and shame), you'll know that nothing short of a devastating attack on a Holy Site (obliterate it) and a crackdown domestically will start to do the job.

Too many people don't realize we are dealing with a fully irrational enemy here. The Quran tells the Muhammadens what to do...and it says spread Islam by the Sword, and through temporary truces until strong enough to win(Hudna) and deception (kitman). Diplomacy will NOT work. But I understand why nobody wants to hear it. Very uncomfortable and a bit scary.

Unfortunatley, I gave up on the idea of Islam having its own Enlightenment. The religion tries once and failed in the 11th century (ijtihad).

Mike   ·  September 24, 2006 02:54 PM
"The West cannot win this war against militant islam."
Nonsense. Of course we can. We have the raw military might to see to it that Islam is a religion practiced only in Hell, if that's what it takes. What we lack is the political and moral will to do that. In fact, we seem to largely lack the political will to even identify militant Islam as the problem. Islam is a religion of peace, don't you know?

You're absolutely right that 'it doesn't look good'. While we dither the Iranians are working dilligently to get nukes and they've already told us what they'll do with them. After a couple of mushroom clouds have gone up I've a feeling the dithering will stop. Then, God help them, Allah certainly won't.

Swen Swenson   ·  September 24, 2006 03:18 PM

The dems seem to have enough trouble accepting a war to get bin laden while Boosh is president. Fighting any other terrorists is completely beyond the left.

jows   ·  September 24, 2006 03:24 PM

I don't think we have what it takes to win. Sure, we have the power to win, but don't have the will or the attention span. Most Americans just don't want to talk about this because it is too unpleasant. They just hope it will go away.

Twok   ·  September 24, 2006 03:26 PM

oh, jeezus!
what is the war "about"?
well, it seems to have taken 150 to realize the civil war was about slavery and not states rights (re: Look
Away, a history of the South in the Civil War)
This president declared war, to "defeat" terrorism, substituting one extremist for another, and both are thriving.
The nation was called upon to retalliate. Just that much. Swift, sure, done. But to a president with nothing to do, we handed a gun to a child. Bush is a child. And not a nice one.
Doesn't anyone care that too many people are dying? Being painfully disfigured for life?
Goddamit!

gerald berke   ·  September 24, 2006 03:31 PM

So Gerald, what did Bush do to cause 9/11? Do you realy think that if we would have treated that attack as a police action we would be at peace now?

tyree   ·  September 24, 2006 04:35 PM

Gosh, Gerald... how surprising that no alternative course of action is mentioned in your condescending evaluation of the guy that kicked everybody else's ass in the last couple of elections.
You seem angry, but at who? At President Bush? At the people that elected him? At the country that raised him?
Are you honestly advocating that we should only launch wars of retaliation? Tit for tat? Eye for eye?

I have NO idea what your considered, rational (no matter how under-informed since we all have a lot less data than the National Command Authority) recommended direction is. Please. Elaborate.

Krans   ·  September 24, 2006 04:42 PM

P.S. Gerald, before you trace your finger down the script/talking points to "chickenhawk/why don't you fight/blah blah blah" I'm currently IN Iraq, have been here twice before, will likely come back next year, and am not complaining.

For everyone else, sorry to have addressed a single commenter rather than the topic at hand... It's just so tiresome...

Krans   ·  September 24, 2006 04:52 PM

Again, apologies for dwelling, but I just followed the link to Gerald's little patch... wow. Never mind any requests for dialogue, I hold no hope out in that direction. Wow. I either feel dirty for having contributed a pip of statistical weight by visiting, or I've just seen the best, driest satire since the Onion or Scrappleface. I honestly have no idea.

Wow.

Krans   ·  September 24, 2006 05:11 PM

I'm not prepared to let this "conflict" drag on like this for decades, and I don't think anyone else is, either. I think most people are already sick and tired of these murderous nutcases planting bombs all over the place and turning out in huge mobs yelling and screaming and setting fire to things every time somebody says something they don't like or publishes a cartoon they don't like. We want life to get back to normal.

The core reason for the existence of a country's military forces is to protect its territory and people. We should do whatever we need to do for that purpose. The next time the Islamist fried-brains commit some major atrocity on American soil, targets THEY care about will go up in mushroom clouds, starting with Mecca. They'll get the idea soon enough and this thing will be over. Think Americans wouldn't do it? 9-11, Beslan, Bali, stories about honor killings and clitorectomy, and all the endless, tiresome rioting and screaming at the tiniest provocation, have thoroughly dehumanized Muslims in the eyes of most Americans. One more mass murder, and the final straw will settle on the camel's back -- and a lot of the Middle East will turn into radioactive lava.

I hope it won't come to that. But whether it does or not is entirely up to the Islamists.

Infidel753   ·  September 24, 2006 05:18 PM

Infidel753,

That is what we may want, but the US is no longer capable of winning wars. We just don't have to balls to apply the necessary force. Even to protect our own lives.

That we have let Iraq go on this long without winning it shows that we just don't have the ability to quash our enemies, even weak, ridiculous enemies like these.

Even if we suffer a 9/11-type or larger attack, we will probably not apply more force than we already are. Liberals will not permit it.

Twok   ·  September 24, 2006 06:29 PM
Even if we suffer a 9/11-type or larger attack, we will probably not apply more force than we already are. Liberals will not permit it.
Actually, hell hath no fury like a liberal scorned. Just check out the left-wing blogosphere. All the multi-culti 'give peace a chance' folks will be the first to scream for blood when a nuke goes off in Manhattan. Unfortunately, that's not speculation, it's a prediction.
Swen Swenson   ·  September 24, 2006 08:06 PM

gerald is a child. He has a simple notion of the world. Americans who like Boosh are bad people. People who don't like Boosh & everybody else are good. AirAmerikaRadio taught him this. War & conflict w/ insane muslims would just go away if it wasn't for BooshChimpHitler manufacturing them.

ernie oertle   ·  September 24, 2006 09:42 PM

Twok -- check your premises, and your send of what a liberal is (a glance at my website wouldn't hurt). I used to volunteer for abortion-clinic defense. Pretty much everyone I met doing that was strongly leftist and anti-Bush. I expressed my feelings about Islam to them in pretty much the same terms as in my comment above. None of them ever objected. Several of them agreed enthusiastically. They knew very well what Islam means for women's rights and other values they support.

Don't assume that nuts like Gerald or the caricatures of leftists promoted on right-wing websites are typical. Extremists are not the mainstream, not on either side of the political spectrum.

Infidel753   ·  September 25, 2006 03:35 AM

(OK, quickly skip past those comments, looks like the same old cr#p, don't want to get sucked in to responding...)

Actually, I think we'll be hearing from Bin Laden soon. I think the terrorists spread these rumours themselves to maximise the effect of his propaganda videos.

Unfortunately.

Kip Watson   ·  September 25, 2006 08:01 AM


January 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits