Monday, October 30, 2006

This war is going to happen, whether you like it or not.

This is not a post I write with great joy. By by the manner in which many of our esteemed "progressives" and isolationaists commentators have been describing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this point has to be re-iterated over and over.

5 years after 9/11, two wars in two different countries, and numerous terrorist activities and busts, the left side of the political spectrum all over the western world still propagate the never-ending philosphy in which they claim is the best tool to curb the extremist islamist ideology. The manner in which it is described varies from one progressive to another, however it all comes down to this:

"If were nice to them, they`ll be nice to us."
or
"They`re here, because we are there."


Basically they believe the west should extend an olive branch whether in the form of removing its troops from muslim lands, or diplomatic and political sacrifice to give in to the muslim world`s concerns. Examples: Giving the Palestinian people their own state or "talking" with the Taliban.

These opinions and talking points illustrate the sad handicap many of our progressive friends suffer from. Like the famous conservative joke says it: "The best thing about being a liberal is that history only begins this mourning".

History, the best conservative tool since Reagan.


I hate to repeat what I`ve been saying all along, but historic facts and past events regarding conflict with fundamentalist muslim militants suggest that neither approach (military withdrawal or diplomatic negotiation) have worked to quench the other side`s thirst for more war and conflict. Quite the contrary, it made them more popular among the muslim world, more determined and more powerful and stronger (Both political and militarily).

Case studies:

Lebanon

Past events in Lebanon gives more than enough ammo to help support our argument that the current enemy we`re fighting is not exactly is not exactly someone whom we can discuss matters of mutual interest over tea and crumpets.

Take for instance, the case of southern lebanon. Since the 80`s international human rights organizations, the UN, the EU and many left-wing talking heads were repeating over and over again that Israel needs to withdraw from the south for there to be peace in the region. Israel was assured from everyone that this withdrawal would result in Hezbollah being less influential to distribute its anti-Israeli propaganda, and that cooler heads would prevail in Lebanon where the moderates would gain the upper hand in pushing for peace.

In 2000, Israel obeyed. It withdrew from southern lebanon with little or nothing in return from the other side. Unfortunately it backfired, very very badly. Hezbollah was given credit for the withdrawal, and were greeted as liberators from the majority of people in Lebanon. The moderates were shut out, as their talking points of reform and moderation were drowned by the loud ovation that "jihad works!" and the the most effective way to get matters done, is through holly war and bloodshed. Hezbollah was rewarded for its popularity with political power in Beirut and self-rule in the predominantly shiite region in Southern Lebanon. To make matters worse, Hezbollah continued to receive more than ever, military supplies from Iran.

Another event of note in Lebanon was the 1983 Marine barracks bombing. Following the bombing, and the huge public outcry back in the US to withdraw the troops, many Americans were not aware the at the time, the Islamists were taking notes, as Bin Laden stated in an interview in 1998:

Osama bin Laden, identified as the mastermind behind Sept. 11, underscored the symbolic importance of the 1983 violence when he told ABC News in 1998 that U.S. soldiers were "paper tigers."

"The Marines fled after two explosions," he recalled.

"There is no question it was a major cause of 9/11," said former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the Sept. 11 investigative commission quoted recently in Knight Ridder Newspapers. "We told the world that terrorism succeeds."




Palestine:

Palestine is a different case study, where different actions took place, but unfortunately yielded similar results. Since time immemorial the Israelis were being pushed in making "sacrifices" with the PLO. And in the early 90`s, the Israelis decided to roll the dice. And proceed with the demands many leftists are making today.

They withdrew from cities like Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Gaza City, Hebron and gave civic control to east Jerusalem. They also agreed to "negotiate" and engage in talks with their arch enemy Yassir Arafat. The overall principles of this negotiation was revolved around "Land for Peace". Basically, the Israelis would give back the lands they took in 1967, in return the Palestinians would cease terrorist activities against Israeli civilians, and crack down on radical groups whose purpose it is to destroy Israel.

The outcome,
Arafat did not crack down terrorism. He greeted Hamas and Islamic jihad with hugs and kisses.
Groups tied to Arafat carried out suicide attacks by the droves.
More Israeli civilians died due to terrorism after the peace process than before Oslo.
Arafat personally wrote the checks to suicide bombing materials.

But, naively, Israel kept on giving, last summer they withdrew from the entire Gaza Strip. Resulting in the same results experienced in Southern Lebanon.
-Hamas was credited for the withdrawal.
-They`re more popular than ever.
-They continue to carry out terrorist activities against Israeli civilians.


In both cases, Israel did exactly what the progressive and isolationist movements are advising to do today. Withdraw militarily and sacrifice politically. Now judge for yourselves:
-Is Israel more in danger today than it was pre-PLO negotiation or withdrawal from south lebanon?
-Are the fundamentalists more or less popular than they were?
-Are the fundamentalists more or less politically influential than they were?

And then, ask yourselves, do you think that withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would not result in a similar fate?

Truth be told, is that if history of the region teaches us anything is that we have two choices:
-Fight them now and take losses by the dozen.
-Withdraw now, and face them again in 10 years when they get more powerful and influential.

Pick your bullet wound.

The "Muslim Outrage".

On talking point the anti-war lobby loves to repeat over and over is the explanation of how Al-Qaida grows in numbers and supporters. The way they see it, whenever muslims see they`re own brethren get killed by Western troops, they instantly become more receptive towards the extremist propaganda who offer them the opportunity avenge those deaths.

Unfortunately, like most matters in the middle east, its not that simple. While there`s no doubt that civilian deaths in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do in fact enrage the muslim youth, thanks to constant brainwashing and propaganda by the religious leaders in the region, you would have to step back and look at the atrocities committed throughout the entire middle east and look at the different reactions the muslim world chooses to display. Namely, at the killing of muslims when the killers are muslims themselves.

Examples:

1. The Hama Massacre: In 1982 following an assassination attempt on Syrian dictator Hafez Al Assad, the Syrian government raided the city of HAMA (where it was believed that it housed the largest opposition members to the Syrian Baathist regime). According to the Syrian Human rights committee, 30000-40000 civilians were massacred. And if you want more in-depth details of the raid, you can find it here:


many families were victims of genocide, whether it was under the heavy artillery shelling or massacres committed by gunning down the victims with light fire weapons. The most terrifying massacres occurred in public squares and in graveyards, even hospitals and schools were not spared, all available buildings were converted to a detention center during the massacre period. It is safe to assert that the massacre of Hama was a collection of separate massacres, which targeted about one fifth of the city’s inhabitants. One survivor of the Sriheen Massacre, which is one of the most horrific massacres then, how people were taken to their fate in eleven trucks. In his testimony, he said: “I was among a huge number of people, so crowded that we almost could not breeze, and we were taken to Sriheen, where we were ordered to step out of the trucks, so we did as told. First thing we noticed was those hundreds of shoes scattered everywhere on the ground. It was then when we realized that it meant that hundreds of our fellow citizens were killed and we were next to face the same imminent death. We were searched afterwards, and any cash or watches were taken off us. Then, the elements of the Syrian authorities ordered us to move forward towards a deeply dug trench, which stretched long. Some of us were ordered to go to another nearby trench. When I stepped forward to my spot by the trench, I saw the pile of bodies in their still tainted by running blood, which horrified me so much that I had to close my eyes and I had to contain myself to avoid falling off. As expected, streams of bullets were fired towards us and everyone fell in their blood into the trenches, whilst the ones who were inside the other trench got shot inside the trench where they stood.” The survivor went on: “My injury was not life threatening and God granted me survival by inspiring me to wait patiently till the murderers left the premises and I ran despite my injuries. I was divinely saved from that fate whereas the injured could die under the weight of the other bodies most definitely.


2. The massacres in Algeria: The armed Islamic group committed massive amounts of massacres all accross rural Algeria, killing as much as 100-300 innocent civilians in a matter of 1-2 hours per day. This occurred more frequently during the holly month of ramadan.

I`m not going to go into details as they`re quite horrific, you can look into this horrific matter on your own, however, just know that Islamists considered no one to be off limits, the targets were specifically women and children. Some put the body count at 60000 others go as high as 120000.

Many more atrocities and human rights abuses were committed on Muslims by muslims themselves. But here`s the interesting (and shocking) fact about all the heinous acts of barbarism.

What was the reaction from the Muslim across the middle east to these massacres.

Nothing.


There was no marches, no debates, no call ins to radio stations, no angry sermons at the mosque, no call for Jihad to avenge those deaths.


Should`nt this reaction at least raise a flag among the anti-war crowd? Why are the lives of muslims killed by Americans or any Western troops considered more important than those killed by their own people?

Doesn't`t this show, to put it mildly, a lack of consistency within the muslim world on the value they place on human life as a whole? The more you think about this, the more you begin to understand the sick ideology and hypocrisy many muslims are living in today. And raises a question as to who is delivering them the message rather than what message is being delivered to them.

Possible reasons for leftist opposition to Mid-East wars:

As I mentioned many times, the left has taken a nasty turn in modern times. Where their hatred for their political enemies outweigh their own principles.

(A good example of this was when the left slammed Bush on his supposed lack of funding for AIDS research. When Bush announced more funding than any other western leader to combat aids, the very same talking heads in turn slammed him for undermining the UN.).

Case in point: the defeat of their political enemies is more important to lefties toda than the well-being of the third-world.

Notice how the death of any civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan is a call for masturbation among many Progressive Bloggers. The thought of dragging dead corpses in the Middle East with the sole intent on attacking their domestic political gain is something many of them get excited about. Repercussion to military withdrawal be dammed. They want their political enemies`heads on a platter. Omar from ITM, hits the nail on the head:

Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people.


To others, its a a case of denial. They cannot bring themselves into believing that their are some real sick bastards in this world. And the solution in dealing with them should not be a bullet in their skull, but a hug and the intent on proving to them that were not bad people.

To some, the wars today tend to draw attention away from issues dear to their hearts. Such as the environment, or social programs. Therefore they more we ignore the problem or get it over with, the sooner we could get back to those matters they hold in priority.

Any way you look at it, the opposition talking points to these wars are very easily demolished with some good ole fashion common sense and history.

Conclusion

Its not that I refuse to look at the the left`s talking points or don`t think some of their concerns are not sincere. I wish it could be as simple as us being nice to them. I WANT to believe that just a little gesture of generosity and compassion on our part would put this whole nightmare to rest.

And its not the fact that I`m right-wing, or heartless, or militaristic, or that I have no desire to see a war-free world. Let be known that if I ever find a magic lamp, with a genie inside, my first wish would be for World Peace.

Its just that I know the reality on the ground. And I know how the middle eastern psyche works.

You want to withdraw now? Fine. Go on ahead, bring back the troops, sit down with Al Qaida, invite the Taliban over for tea, let`s give in to their demands. And then...well`ll be back at war with them in 10 years time, only this time they will be 10 times deadlier.

Be it now, or tomorrow, or 10 years from now. We will still be at war with this ideology. Whether we want it or not.