A War of Will
The dangers of a nuclear Iran are many. Chief among them: A nuclear Iran will be able to put its hob-nailed Islamofascist boot on the neck of the West, and given the value the West puts on life (contrasted wtih the Islamicist embrace of death), there is no meaningful reciprocal deterrent.
Discussing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Mark Steyn gets it right, as usual.
As Steyn points out, the shape of the war on terror couldn't be better designed to fit Islamofascist strengths and point up the weakness of the West:
In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs—our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower—their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us?
Why not, indeed? Who can blame Islamicists for thinking that way? At present, the US is embroiled in a debate about illegal immigration, where it seems there is no agreement on even the most fundamental aspects of national security and national culture.
It does seem to indicate a certain "urge to surrender" when there's no consensus even on whether 1. The United States has the right -- and the obligation -- to secure its own borders and regulate (and then enforce) laws about exactly who enters this country; and 2. Those who come here seeking citizenship should make efforts to assimilate into the cultural, linguistic and political traditions of the U.S.
A culture that it is afraid or unwilling to assert its own merit is one, Islamicists could reasonably conclude, that is ripe for surrender.
Discussing Iran's nuclear ambitions, Mark Steyn gets it right, as usual.
As Steyn points out, the shape of the war on terror couldn't be better designed to fit Islamofascist strengths and point up the weakness of the West:
In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs—our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower—their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us?
Why not, indeed? Who can blame Islamicists for thinking that way? At present, the US is embroiled in a debate about illegal immigration, where it seems there is no agreement on even the most fundamental aspects of national security and national culture.
It does seem to indicate a certain "urge to surrender" when there's no consensus even on whether 1. The United States has the right -- and the obligation -- to secure its own borders and regulate (and then enforce) laws about exactly who enters this country; and 2. Those who come here seeking citizenship should make efforts to assimilate into the cultural, linguistic and political traditions of the U.S.
A culture that it is afraid or unwilling to assert its own merit is one, Islamicists could reasonably conclude, that is ripe for surrender.
posted by Carol Platt Liebau at 9:05 AM
2 Comments:
Based on polls and what not it would appear that Iran and the Mexican flag wavers are getting both blue state and red state citizens pissed off. Quite a feat, considering 9/11 hasn't quite done it for the blue staters. Maybe our representatives will get the message and get so incensed themselves they will focus on doing the right thing instead of their jobs. Cause, to tell you the truth, I ain't so enamored with their jobs as they are.
Hobnailed. Hobnailed. What a great word. It's so...truculent. Ornery, even. Yet it's also jaunty, as if lifted from an ode to Kipling.
I bet the Cossacks wore hobnailed waffle stompers. But I bet they didn't have enough perspicuity to call them hobnailed.
Post a Comment
<< Home