I check Sarah’s site several times a day. She always has something to say, and says it all well.
Today she talks about the war on terrorists, and asks the very pertinent question: “When someone says that war is not the answer, we need to ask them what the f-ing question is.”
I read TryingToGrok on occasion, and occasionally find her very insightful. This however, takes the crown as The Dumbest Thing She’s Ever Written.
The f%@#ing question is, “How do we lead the transition from a world where a small faction of extremists will go to great lengths to kill innocent Americans to a world where that sort of thing simply doesn’t happen?”
Get it yet? Guess what? War is not, was never, and will never be “the answer.”
Before the name-calling begins, I suppose I’d better point out that my point does NOT mean that I don’t support our troops as long as this /is/, in fact, the mission our nation has given them. As long as we’re there, I’d like us to do it right. I’m not quite convinced yet, though, that we are.
(And no, the answer is NOT kissing their asses either. But no more time to write; work awaits…)
Comment by Bogey — May 13, 2004 @ 8:37 am
I second that.
Comment by Sunsangnim — May 13, 2004 @ 10:33 am
Sometimes there is no alternative. Whether you believe this is one of them or not. What was the answer to Japan’s attack in 1941 other than war, as one example?
Comment by Bunker — May 13, 2004 @ 4:33 pm
Perhaps you misunderstood my statement that war “is not, was never, and will never be the answer.” I meant that only as applied to the question at hand. I actually have no qualms about war in general, and especially killing terrorists — the same way I’d have no qualms putting down a rabid dog.
For instance, I agree totally that the appropriate response to Pearl Harbor was war. I agreed 100% with the first Gulf War, in which a country invaded its neighbor and we drove them out. I thought we should have deposed the Hussein regime then, too, when the world actually would have supported it.
Sept. 11 was not Pearl Harbor. I still think the only way to root out and kill off the terrorists is to do it with patience, ingenuity, stealth, and precision — the same way they hit us. Every day we’re seeing the (predictable!!) results of a huge, all-hands-on-deck war like we’ve been pursuing: breeding more and more and more terrorists.
Comment by Bogey — May 13, 2004 @ 6:51 pm
We stopped in the first Gulf War because that was the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution. It was also in the interest of the Saudis. They simply wanted Saddam to not be an imminent threat to them.
We do not “create” terrorists. A clear reading of the Quran will show this is the standard as defined by the religion. Virtually every religion has had people commit atrocities in its name, but Islam is the only one I am aware of where the death of every non-believer is a basic tenet. Of course, there are many contradictions in the Quran which makes any action justifiable if you look closely enough. Christianity, on the other hand (as an example) is based on New Testament writings which focus on peace and understanding. Far different from the Old Testament which is filled with wars and eye for an eye, etc.
When people want to point out christians have acted similarly, they use the Spanish Inquisition as the example. That was the function of several ranking church and government leaders, and an answer to Islamic occupation of most of Spain. So, too, were the Crusades a response to Arab conquest of the Holy Land.
I’m no warmonger. But the world often functions in the bully-victim mode. When a bully stands up, you need to slap him down. It not only stops him, but sends a message to other bully wannabes.
Comment by Bunker — May 13, 2004 @ 7:32 pm
Hi, Bogey. No need to be As Rude As You Sound. All capital letters indeed.
“The f%@#ing question is, ‘How do we lead the transition from a world where a small faction of extremists will go to great lengths to kill innocent Americans to a world where that sort of thing simply doesn’t happen?'”
If you don’t think war is the answer to your question, then what is? See, the funny thing is that I’ve never heard an anti-war person come up with a good idea of how to stop the spread of the “small faction of extremists”, as you call them. I’ve heard the word negotiations thrown around a few times, but I think that answer is a joke; it reveals a complete lack of understanding of the way the world actually works.
When Israel “negotiates” with Palestine and releases prisoners during a cease-fire, those same prisoners pick up their weapons and return to the fight. In interviews on their way out of prison, they laugh in the face of duped Israel and scoff at the cease-fire. When the US “negotiates” with al-Sadr or those in Fallujah, they call us weak and cowards. When the US “negotiates” with North Korea, they continue to make nuclear weapons for years while smiling at Jimmy Carter and pretending to be on the same side.
Negotiations only work when both sides play by the rules.
Would negotiations have prevented Berg’s death? Would negotiations have stopped two planes from crashing into the WTC? Can we negotiate with people who think that God is on their side? How can you compromise on the will of Allah?
The only answer is war. Whether you like it or not, Bogey, the only thing these people respond to is a show of force. They will never throw their hands in the air and say, “Gee, what were we thinking? Of course we should all try to get along! My bad!” They will continue to fight us until every last one of us is enslaved or dead.
The only way to stop the spread is to take the fight to them.
Dumbest Thing Ever Written? I don’t think you grok what we’re up against.
Comment by Sarah — May 14, 2004 @ 12:46 am
More, via Brain Terminal:
“We tried not fighting after hundreds of Marines were killed in Beirut. We tried not fighting after the first World Trade Center bombing. We tried it after Khobar Towers, Kenya and Tanzania. We didn’t fight after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. According to the theories of the peace movement, shying away from these fights should have brought us peace. Instead, it led directly to September 11th.”
http://brain-terminal.com/articles/world/ghraib-berg.html
Comment by Sarah — May 14, 2004 @ 1:17 am
Damn Bogey you sure made a lot of people upset with your original comment. That is one thing that I love most about this country, and the reason why I defend it. That is the freedom, and privilege of free speech. Well atleast until the left wing censors came into play.
Comment by birdie — May 14, 2004 @ 1:31 pm
Sarah, I’m sorry if you took personal offense at my comment. Bunker would probably vouch for me as an exceedingly polite person in the flesh, but evidently I’ve been quite a bit less thoughtful online this week.
Anyway, remember that everything is relative: I didn’t say it was the dumbest thing ever written, I said the dumbest thing /you’ve/ ever written. That could easily mean that it’s still smarter that most anything that anyone else ever writes! ;^) Like I said, I have plenty of respect for what you do and what you say, and as I’ve already mentioned, you have genuinely influenced my opinion on numerous occasions.
I’m especially sorry that in this case, it seems that you were so offended by the first line that you evidently didn’t even read my comments. As soon as you saw I had called BS on your “what’s the f%@$ing question” line, you seem to have jumped to a lot of dead-wrong conclusions about where I actually stand on things.
I’m getting mighty tired of people in your corner of the b’sphere (hell, every corner) making wild assumptions about other people’s opinions just because they’re not an exact match with their own. (There’s a verb for that, by the way: o’reilly. As in, “I tried to explain my position, but he o’reillied until it just became pointless.”)
So, that aside, let’s clarify: I never said a blessed thing about “negotiations.” I stated pretty plainly that to me, “the answer” to my question is to “kill off the terrorists… with patience, ingenuity, stealth, and precision — the same way they hit us.” If you’ll allow it, let me add “absolutely brutal power” to that list the second time around, OK?
See, I take as little stock in “diplomacy” and “international law” and all those fairy tales as you and Bunker. I’m talking about better spies, better assassins, and carefully targeted raids based on better intelligence than we’ve ever had before. I want the f*&%ers dead just as much as you do. I just believe we can do it /much better/. And in a way that doesn’t play out in the world consciousness as “war.” Because I believe that:
– the rest of the world does matter, too; and
– the perception by anyone, home or abroad, of the “big ol’ US war machine” steamrolling across the whole Middle East works against the goal.
What’s the goal again? “Lead the transition from a world where a small faction of extremists will go to great lengths to kill innocent Americans to a world where that sort of thing simply doesn’t happen.”
And it really IS a (relatively) small faction of extremists. Bunker can say all he wants about Jihad being a basic tenet of Islam, and of course he’s dead-to-rights… on paper or in pixels. But Birdie has sent us pictures of him and his boys tossing back a beer with ordinary Iraqis: guys who just want to make a decent living, raise their kids, and spoil their grandkids. Those are the real people of the Middle East, just like the real people of everywhere else. It’s the way things are playing out now, in the home towns of young people shaken by this mass chaos and large foreign occupation force in their homelands, that makes those young people think twice about the “Nasty Infidels” unit they studied in the fourth grade. Terrorists ARE “created,” Bunker. Virtually no human beings are born as terrorists, and relatively few Muslims truly are raised as such.
Because if every one of them really believed in Jihad, well then /everyone/ would have picked up their shovels and hoes and pipe wrenches and completely overwhelmed our troops the minute we arrived.
As an afterthought: I’ve heard people say that my “preferred approach” (assassinations, raids, patience, carefully measured and metered death to the peckerheads) would be too difficult. I think that with the proper perspective (and most likely a /smaller/ chunk of the budget than we’re spending on the war as it stands) nothing is too difficult for us. We’re AMERICANS, for cryin’ out loud.
Grok that? Either way, enjoy the weekend.
Comment by Bogey — May 14, 2004 @ 9:56 pm
Well, jeez Bogey, no offense but that is most certainly NOT what you said in your original comment. Read your original comment again and you should understand right away how it lead me to the conclusion I hit. I did not o’reilly you; you set yourself up perfectly to fit in the same category with all the other anti-war types. Now that you have expanded what you *meant* to say, I have much less beef with your ideas. But you insulted me in your first line and then followed with two generic anti-war platitudes (war is not the answer, but I support the troops). Sounded like a bonafide idiotarian to me.
Glad to hear your views are more nuanced and you at least agree that there’s a fight to be fought.
Comment by Sarah — May 15, 2004 @ 12:17 am
Yep, I read my first comment and your last comment again, and my understanding of how it led you to your conclusions hasn’t changed: you /jump/ to conclusions based on anything that doesn’t sound like it’s 100% in line with /your war, your way/. Even in your last post, you specify clearly what you felt you were reacting to… but even the most “generic anti-war platitudes” often mean a lot more than they do when you take them at face value. That’s been my motivation for commenting on this post more than actual views on the war per se.
My $0.02: The “grok-this, idiotarian-that” approach that you’ve been taking over the last few months (I believe I’ve seen a shift) is black-and-white and us-against-them, to the point of insulting and deriding even slightly opposing viewpoints (I felt that previously, you were smartly persuading folks to see things your way). It all depends on how you see the purpose of your presence in the blogosphere, though, and if it has become more to blow off the frustration you feel at the “other side” (and building a loyal cadre of sympathetic readers), that’s totally fine. Nothing wrong with that at all.
And maybe my perception of your recent shift in tone is totally off the mark. Or maybe it’s just a temporary trend. Time will tell.
Now, since time is short, I’ll just go back over to your site and leave a very friendly comment about something (someone) on which we see completely eye-to-eye.
Comment by Bogey — May 15, 2004 @ 8:32 am
What I like to see is people having a discussion rather than a debate. Two intelligent folks like yourselves can do that. Debate is a contest. Discussion is a learning opportunity.
Comment by Bunker — May 15, 2004 @ 12:15 pm
Glad that’s what you like to see, Bunker… do you feel like that’s what you’re getting out of the blogs you read? Which ones, in your opinon, have the best signal-to-noise ratio, with varying viewpoints fairly represented?
Comment by Bogey — May 15, 2004 @ 1:11 pm
The only site which has reliably good open discussion I am aware of is Harry’s Place. The folks who maintain it are reformed communists, some of whom have left-leaning opinions, and the rest who are smart (smirk).
Most blogs have comments that say, essentially, “Me too!” including mine. We tend to go where people share our values. I read Sarah’s site first thing each time I visit the ‘net, as an example.
But I also have links to people like Mike Totten, Joe Galloway, and Kevin Sites, who don’t have my exact perspective.
My view has always been that if you don’t learn something today, you’ve wasted the entire day.
Of course, knowing me as he does, Bogey doesn’t believe a word of that!!!
Comment by Bunker — May 15, 2004 @ 1:31 pm
>>Of course, knowing me as he does,
>>Bogey doesn’t believe a word of that!!!
Naw, I believe you just fine! Except for the “always” part. From one of your recent posts, I gleaned that in your first stint at college, your philosopy was more along the lines of, “the day is wasted if I’m NOT wasted.” :^)
Comment by Bogey — May 16, 2004 @ 6:15 pm
COMMENT
Sorry, I ran out of time this morning. I was too busy responding to grokless comments on Anders’ and Bunker’s posts….
Trackback by trying to grok — May 14, 2004 @ 1:11 am