Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Tactics and morality

The last few days, I've been opting to cut and paste news items I found interesting, intead of doing my own writing.

I've been dealing with some work matters that are annoying, personal matters that are not and staying up late. I've also been learning and researching about Australia and Canada.

Look for stuff on that in the next few days.

In the meantime, I've come to a few conclusions and realizations on our War on Terror, right and wrong and morality.

Some realities are clear.

There is simply no moral equivalence between our enemies and ourselves. Those who attempt to draw that conclusion are stuck in their own quagmire of Islamic radicalism in their own backyard.

They need to make that moral equivalence in the delusional belief that in doing so, they will, A) put off the inevitable confrontation with Islam in Europe in the hope that second generation Muslims will be more receptive to western ideas and B) offer European Mulsims a 'place at the table' by acceeding to Muslim demands on a regular basis, providing for the political illusion, if not economic reality, of a middle class and thus head off radical ideologues.

Despite tolerating, defending and excusing Islamic sanctioned Jihad of every stripe and ideology, Europe and American liberals are hell bent on denying the implications of current Muslim ideologies.

Daily, we are treated to long winded discourse on the future dangers of American Imperialism and hegemony. We are subjected to prognostications of American culture destroying native or indigenous cultures. American economic models threaten the slaughter of other cultures and societies and their precious way of life. The list of threats America poses to the world is endless.

Never are the long terms implications if Islamist ideologies discussed-- despite the Islamists themselves quite clearly stating what their objectives are.

A few weeks ago, Paulie over at
The Commons and myself were discussing the nature of evil. He had some interesting things to say and his piece is well worth reading, as is everything else there. Hunt around, read a bit and I promise, you'll have plenty to think about. BunkerMulligan and Marvin at LittleRedBlog, too, opine far more rationally and succintly on these matters, than I do. What they write has more than once, emcouraged me to write and in fact, are the basis of this piece, by extrapolation. I mention them and others on the HSB list as a source of good reading. I strongly urge you to peruse these sites. Original thinking, cogent ideas and perceptive questions being asked everyday.

Not too long ago, I wrote something on the
triage of morals.

The question I pose now is rather simple: What is the greater evil-- the perpetration of evil or the denial of evil, despite it's obvious presence?

That the Islamists agenda is evil, is quite clear. They wish to impose a set of beliefs that is foreign to our own and is an agenda that they would posit regardless of Iraq, Israel or anything else. They are quite clear-- Islam is to be forced upon those who refuse to accept it, by any means.

That there are now voices that question that is irrelevant. Someone recently said, it's not the voices that count-- it is the actions that matter. We see no such actions.

In this country and elsewhere, there is complete denial of these realities. 'Progressives' join the chorus of anti western ideals and support the very groups, who if ever empowered, would decimate them. The anti American sentiment it seems, is far more important than facing the reality.

So again, I ask, which evil is greater, that of the Islamists, who make their intentions known, or that of their supporters and apologists, who give their cause a legitimacy that is so profane?

For me, the answer is clear.

In truth, our war on terror is not so much hampered in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, as it is at home.

Our detractors tell us that we are cruel and evil, because we kill those 'out of uniform.' There is no real army, they say, so we must desisit from our endeavor.

Here's the real deal:

If a western General got up and said, "We will kill those with whom we disagree, and we will plunder and subjugate them as well-- and we will do this in the name of our flag and country," well, that General is a legitimate target in war, as our the soldiers under his command. No question about that.

Now suppose if instead of a uniformed military man, a covert ops person, with a large undercover team, working on behalf of a government, or tolerated by a government, made those remarks. Obviously, he and his followers would be no less of a target.

That is what we face. Our declared enemies do not have uniformed 'Generals,' per se. They have and use a a different command structure. Instead of a military hierchy, they employ a religious hierchy, to which they have given free reign.

Make no mistake about it. These 'religious' leaders are not leaders because of their piety. They are in place because the regimes keeps them in place and empowers them-- to support the policies of the regimes.

Using our notions of freedoms and the 'rules of engagement' propogated by western ideals, the Islamists today remain shielded, by our own unwillingness to see and deal with reality and by repressive governments that allow the Islamists a free hand.

The idea that we have 'partners' in the war on terror is laughable.

In 1982, the Syrian goverment killed between 20,000 andd 40,000 people in
Hama, because they wanted to. If they wanted to eliminate the terrorists, they could. Read about it.

They don't do it because they don't want to. Eliminating terror is counter productive to their ideologies and beliefs. If terror is eliminated, they would have to deal with reform and democracy-- and that's the last thing they want to do. Why give up a power if your proxies can keep attention focused outwards?

These regimes are just as guilty as the Islamist terrorists they protect, encourage and arm.

We know this.

Who is more evil-- the Islamists and their supporters, or those who impede our fight against terror by reason of apology, self loathing or the use of outright deceit as method of undermining our resolve and obfuscating the truth?

To me, the answer is obvious.

Wandering Mind

may not be suitable for political vegans