Carol Platt Liebau: Stark But True

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Stark But True

Mark Steyn has a sobering question:

What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it "redeployment" or "exit strategy" or "peace with honor" but, by the time it's announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation. Likewise, when it's announced on "Good Morning Pyongyang" and the Khartoum Network and, come to that, the BBC.

The primary problem isn't that the Democrats were voted in -- although, Heaven knows, that's bad enough. The problem is that it's going to be interpreted across the world as a validation of Osama bin Laden's assessment of the West in general and the United States in particular -- as a bunch of fat, lazy, decadent losers without the will or the guts to withstand Inslamofascism.

9 Comments:

Blogger Red7Eric said...

"What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists?"

Indeed -- what does it mean when such a superpower cannot even find Osama bin Laden a full five years after 9-11? Clearly, we're not as powerful as we pretend to be.

1:46 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

The real shame is that the world's greatest military power declared war on a person and is going bankrupt over it, because Bush invaded the wrong country.

1:53 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

"what does it mean when such a superpower cannot even find Osama bin Laden a full five years after 9-11?"

It means it realizes that catching him won't have the impact those fixated on finding him think it will have.

For eddy,

The real shame is your refusal to see reality and that you vote.

11:58 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Editor's comments prove true our greatest fears regarding the left:

Either they don't realize we are in a life-or-death struggle with a worldwide enemy, or worse, they know and don't care.

Red:

The truth is that we are not as strong as we think we are. (Rich Mullins has a great song about that.) But the real question is: Are we as weak as they think we are?

The Democrats seem to want to answer that question in the affirmative.

8:01 AM  
Blogger Red7Eric said...

Greg says ... "But the real question is: Are we as weak as they think we are? The Democrats seem to want to answer that question in the affirmative."

~~~~~

Words like strength and weakness describe the capacity of a nation or an individual to make something happen, or not. Whether or not we've got a big military isn't the question; in that, we're certainly strong. But is the correct solution always a military solution? This brings us to another question -- how smart are we?

9:55 AM  
Blogger Editor said...

Slam dunk, right buddies!

12:23 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

For eddy's last, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

For Red,

After a dozen years and about 17 resolutions, military force was indeed the right way to go. How much more talkin' need have been done? Some may say keep talking until you find a way to get through. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were dying as this was going on. While Iraqis are still dying, they have the beginnings of democracy and a far better reason to die than just to be taken, raped, tortured and then murdered. Though one is still dead, which would YOU prefer?

But to the point, though we are using the military, it's presence is still required due to the fact that those we fight don't talk. They only murder. Yet at the same time, we are talking to the new Iraqi government, we're talking to North Korea. We talk all the time. We don't use the military all the time.

How smart are we? Could you come up with a more subjective question? We certainly don't need a post from eddy-boy to know how HE'D answer. I'd say the answer is similar to Greg's. We're probably not as smart as we could be, but we're nowhere near as stupid as people like eddy think we are. That we don't cover every base, that we can't account for every eventuality, none of this diminishes our level of intelligence. There is only One Who is perfect, and He's not allowed in public debates.

10:35 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Either they don't realize we are in a life-or-death struggle with a worldwide enemy, or worse, they know and don't care.

Well, either they don't care or they really don't want to see the United States prevail. If they take as their premise that the US is the locus of all evil in the world, then it would be logically consistent for them to root against it.

6:32 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Red:

My comments about strength and weakness had nothing to do with military capability. They had everything to do with courage and determination.

Do we have the courage and determination to continue this fight to the finish? The terrorists have said all along we do not. They rejoice at the recent victories for Democrats. They use those victories to support their claim that we do not have the courage or determination necessary for this fight.

Why aren't Democrats lining up to denounce this interpretation by the terrorists?

As for the question of smarts, are we smart enough to realize we are in a war against a fascist enemy bent on world domination? Or are we stupid enough to think they are really nice guys who simply want to be understood?

8:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google