Getting It Exactly Backwards
In this breathtakingly obtuse piece, LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks opines that the Bush Administration's decision to fight the war on terror has somehow elevated the status of our enemies.
Most ironically, the "war on terror" framework has lent legitimacy to terrorist leaders such as KSM, enabling them to present themselves as warriors standing up against a powerful — and hypocritical — U.S. military machine.
At his Guantanamo hearing, KSM was quick to exploit what he termed the "language of war." "I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America," he piously informed the military tribunal. But in war, "you have to kill." The U.S., he implied, is really not so different from Al Qaeda. Just consider the innocents killed by U.S. bombardments!
(That latter bit of "reasoning," loaded with ridiculous moral equivalence, sounds a lot like what emanates from the mouths of many elected Democrats.)
Actually, Professor Brooks, jihadists were marketing themselves as warriors long before 9/11. What's more, it's not the declaration of a "war on terror" that has elevated the visibility of people like "KSM," -- rather, what's gained them public attention is the fact that they are trying to kill us and are willing to come to our shores to do it. Amazingly, Brooks thinks they should be treated like common criminals, rather than lawless enemy combatants. If that isn't offering them unwarranted "legitimacy," than what does?
Last week at Guantanamo, KSM finally got his theatrical opportunity: the chance to stand before a military tribunal and proudly accept the mantle of "enemy combatant" in Al Qaeda's war against the U.S. By declaring war on terrorism, the Bush administration ended up playing right into his hands.
In Brooks' world, if we just ignore the fact that Islamofascists have declared war on America, it will simply disappear. But it's worth remembering that if Brooks and her friends get their way -- terrorists are moved to the United States, given trials in federal court, and extended all the constitutional protections offered to American citizens -- people like KSM will receive even greater opportunities to "grandstand."
In fact, the lefties who slop over with sympathy for Guantanamo detainees are the ones who are playing into the terrorists' hands. By exploiting the sympathies of the soft-hearted and soft-headed, terrorists have managed in many cases to secure something approaching "prisoner of war" status -- a status that carries protections to which no law entitles them. And that, rather than the Bush Administration's decision to take their plots against with the seriousness that's warranted, is what legitimizes them and their activities.
Note to Professor Brooks: Just because we don't want to be at war with them, that doesn't mean they're not at war with us -- however much the soft-headed and hopelessly naive among us might refuse to concede that fact.
Most ironically, the "war on terror" framework has lent legitimacy to terrorist leaders such as KSM, enabling them to present themselves as warriors standing up against a powerful — and hypocritical — U.S. military machine.
At his Guantanamo hearing, KSM was quick to exploit what he termed the "language of war." "I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America," he piously informed the military tribunal. But in war, "you have to kill." The U.S., he implied, is really not so different from Al Qaeda. Just consider the innocents killed by U.S. bombardments!
(That latter bit of "reasoning," loaded with ridiculous moral equivalence, sounds a lot like what emanates from the mouths of many elected Democrats.)
Actually, Professor Brooks, jihadists were marketing themselves as warriors long before 9/11. What's more, it's not the declaration of a "war on terror" that has elevated the visibility of people like "KSM," -- rather, what's gained them public attention is the fact that they are trying to kill us and are willing to come to our shores to do it. Amazingly, Brooks thinks they should be treated like common criminals, rather than lawless enemy combatants. If that isn't offering them unwarranted "legitimacy," than what does?
Last week at Guantanamo, KSM finally got his theatrical opportunity: the chance to stand before a military tribunal and proudly accept the mantle of "enemy combatant" in Al Qaeda's war against the U.S. By declaring war on terrorism, the Bush administration ended up playing right into his hands.
In Brooks' world, if we just ignore the fact that Islamofascists have declared war on America, it will simply disappear. But it's worth remembering that if Brooks and her friends get their way -- terrorists are moved to the United States, given trials in federal court, and extended all the constitutional protections offered to American citizens -- people like KSM will receive even greater opportunities to "grandstand."
In fact, the lefties who slop over with sympathy for Guantanamo detainees are the ones who are playing into the terrorists' hands. By exploiting the sympathies of the soft-hearted and soft-headed, terrorists have managed in many cases to secure something approaching "prisoner of war" status -- a status that carries protections to which no law entitles them. And that, rather than the Bush Administration's decision to take their plots against with the seriousness that's warranted, is what legitimizes them and their activities.
Note to Professor Brooks: Just because we don't want to be at war with them, that doesn't mean they're not at war with us -- however much the soft-headed and hopelessly naive among us might refuse to concede that fact.
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:02 PM
6 Comments:
What the leftists in America count on every bit as much as The Islamic Terrorists do, is the vast number of uninformed and ill-informed people who respond to polls and promptings by those with an anti-America agenda. Those who consume that bad information and feed their self hatred watch it grow and metasticize into hatred for their country, and countrymen with a conservative America and God first belief. If you don't stand for something you will believe anything.
We in America must be so safe that there are legions of people who think that there is no threat. Not from Russia, China, Open Borders, or these Islamo Nazi's. No threat to our economy from opec, insurance companies, or greed. No God who will one day judge US all. It must be nice to live in a cocoon with ipod, mtv, and liberal politicians who will care for you from cradle to grave. In some ways maybe the Bush Administration has done too good a job of getting US back to normal asap after 9/11. Nobody took the time to calculate why we were so easily deceived by political correctness. Not much has changed since then. The Republicans still do not stand up for themselves and the Democrats still want US to embrace socialism. And the Islamascists still want US dead.
Carol, you can't deny that you advocated the carpet bombing of innocent Palestinian women and children. It is in your archives.
You may think you are special but others might reasonably conclude that you are no different from the radical Jihadist.
Poor Palistinians - when the towers came down on 9/11, they had to dance in the streets with no music.
If tomorrow the Pali's laid down their weapons, there would be peace
If tomorrow the Israeli's laid down their weapons there would be a bloodbath. At one point or another Israel has tried to give the Pali's everything they asked for. However they are holding out for the one thing that they will never have - Dead Jews - an Israel full of dead Jews.
Unless your are a Muslim, ETC - they want you dead too!
BTW - who are you, why are you hiding behind an anonamous ID?
ETC,
I won't debate what Carol might have said about carpet-bombing the Palestinians. What I will debate is whether such tactics make put us on the same level as jihadists. Intent is everything. What is the intent of the jihadists? How does that compare with retaliatory attacks by our government? If you think they are exactly the same, you have a major problem in recognizing true evil. You may recall from your world history lessons that in WWII, we bombed Germany and Japan heavily. Many civilians were killed. In Japan in particular, the bombings there brought about an almost immediate surrender without condition. From Gen. Sherman in the Civil War, we learned that in order to win a war, the citizenry of the enemy must be put into a position where they will or can no longer tolerate the hardships leveled against them. They cry out for an end. (How sad that in America and the West in general that such a cry comes long before any real hardship is realized by the population.) Thus, if carpet-bombing will force the end of the Palestinian aggression against Israel, it should indeed be implemented.
You have to realize that the government of the country being attacked has to look out for the people of it's nation. Protecting them is a primary duty of the government. But look at it this way: many on the left think that Bush is the despot and march and protest and call for his removal. If he was a true despot, there'd be troops, as well as blood, in the streets and likely he'd be deposed. That's what one would like to see in the countries lead by true despots. Failing that, we might need to help it along for our own protection. Attacking the countries right out with all the might at our disposal could accomplish that. It has in WWII. In every war since, where we've put gone out of our way to "fight nice", it didn't end well.
There's only one way to insure the end of aggressions, and that's to totally break the will of the enemy. Carpet bombing is an effective tactic to that end. In ju justsu, we learn that a swift and devastating technique can actually benefit the opponent. He may have a broken wrist, but that is better for him than repeated blows to the head. In war, we save lives on both sides by swift and devastating attacks in the beginning. It gives the enemy the thought that perhaps messing with us will exact too great a toll. Consider yourself on the receiving end of a carpet bomb attack. Knowing your opponent is capable of bringing more of the same with extreme prejudice, would you not be likely to run up the white flag and mean it?
I'll bite, Earth.
Prove it. Show me where Carol "advocated the carpet bombing of innocent Palestinian women and children."
I don't believe you.
You could be right. But I'm doubting you. Prove your statement to be true.
Earth,
No response in 5 days. I guess that means you don't have anything to back your outrageous claim.
I wish Republicans in D.C. would stand up to the Democrats' wildly hollow posturing more often as well!
Post a Comment
<< Home