Preemptive surrender? I hope not!

At PJM, Michael Ledeen consults the spirit of James Jesus Angleton and asks a good question: "What if the Killing of Bin Laden Is the Beginning of The Great American Retreat?" Interesting theory and speculation, and if the killing turns out to be an excuse for retreat, I will oppose the retreat. However, the possibility that the killing was meant to grease the skids for a pullout not change my wholehearted support for the killing of bin Laden. How could it?

If the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, does it somehow become the wrong thing? 

This is somewhat related to Sarah's piece about the immense desire on the left to see the killing of bin Laden as an excuse for ending the war -- as if for all these years we were at war with one man, Osama bin Laden.

How naive to imagine that ideology would ever work that way! True, there are instances in history in which one man can be so all-important, and Adolf Hitler comes close. But even if an attempt on Hitler's life had been successful, would that have meant the end of World War II, much less an end to the war with Nazi Germany? Of course not. Sure, it might very well have accelerated the end. And if the bin Laden killing accelerates the end, that would be great. 

Tell you what. When I see Ayman al Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the rest of that scurvy crew of murderous thugs climb the steps to one of our aircraft carriers to sign the surrender documents, I might be willing to call it a victory.

But what these lefties and some of the Ron Paul types seem to forget is that we are dealing with people who have pledged to kill us. 

When you're dealing with people who have pledged to kill you and have not backed down one inch, anything less than their surrender ultimately means your surrender.

It comes down to what Sarah has called the Sarah Doctrine, and what I  call ordinary street smarts.  

posted by Eric on 05.05.11 at 08:59 AM










Comments

The left can end the war all they want. They can ignore it. They can even cut off funding. Sooner or later another 9/11 or some such will convince the sincerely deluded that they were in error.

Wars end when BOTH sides agree they do. And to be unaware of that is the great anti-war delusion.

M. Simon   ·  May 5, 2011 9:08 AM

"Wars end when BOTH sides agree they do. And to be unaware of that is the great anti-war delusion."

Indeed. And it seems all of the anti-war types (left, right, libertarian) have some sort of a mental disconnect when you try to explain why that's a delusion.

Kathy Kinsley   ·  May 5, 2011 11:17 AM

Strangely, pointing out how places like Poland, Norway, Singapore, China and such found out that wars can happen whether you want them or not doesn't get very far.

Equally strangely, the only places pacifist communities are doing well are in the West, where they can be in the middle of a nice, peaceful society that won't enslave or eliminate them.

Makes you think the notion that the only way to have peace is to be stronger than anyone who wants war might not be entirely mistaken.

Oh, wait, I committed the worst possible sin. I suggested people think. I shall slink away and punish myself by writing more of the current novel.

Kate   ·  May 5, 2011 1:43 PM

So, we're at war with a nebulous enemy who hides among the populace and strikes at will while the local populations are unwilling to police themselves because they secretly agree with them.

How is this not a fools errand? I'm no pacifist but "nation building" annoys me to no end.

rechill   ·  May 5, 2011 6:12 PM

rechill,

Well going back to redo the rubble every few years is a fools errand too.

What it comes down to is that eventually you have to civilize the barbarians. A thankless and expensive job to be sure. Even when it works. Often it doesn't. The alternative is to let the barbarians multiply until they are a serious annoyance. Bad idea IMO.

M. Simon   ·  May 6, 2011 7:48 PM

Just banning marriages with consanguinity closer than 3rd cousin in the west (worldwide would be better) would do a lot to reduce the problem.

Average IQ and literacy rates in mideast:
Bahrain................. 85 ................... 83
Egypt ................... 51 ................... 83
Iran ..................... 71 ................... 84
Iraq ..................... 58 ................... 87
Israel ................... 95 ................... 94
Jordan .................. 86 .................. 87
Kuwait .................. 79 .................. 83
Lebanon ................ 83 .................. 86
Oman .................... 64 .................. 83
Qatar .................... 79 .................. 78
Saudi Arabia ........... 71 .................. 83
Syria ..................... 70 .................. 87
Turkey ................... 82 .................. 90
United Arab Emirates . 79 .................. 83

Canada has a 97% literacy rate, the USA has a literacy rate of 99%.
Canada has an IQ average of 97 and the USA has an average of 98.

I pulled those stats from a 2006 post but I suspect the same still applies.

Kathy Kinsley   ·  May 6, 2011 8:09 PM

Post a comment


May 2011
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