Two more posts from Henry. The first is here, and the second is here.
Henry, I agree that evoking Gandhi and Martin Luther King in the present circumstance is not helpful, and I’m remembering what Dale has said down the page about extremes. I also agree that the threat of Jihad is serious, though I don’t subscribe to the notion that Islamic militancy is unified or monolithic. It seems pretty disorganized to me, and I suspect that most of its adherents have no notion of a caliphate.
As to what constitutes a serious position about Iraq, David Brooks has an opinion piece in today’s New York Times that sets out pretty clearly at least part of what I think. I can’t post a link because it’s in a paid part of the NYT site, but here’s the most of his conclusion. Brooks argues that there are at present two serious positions about Iraq:
One serious position is heard on the left: that there’s nothing more we can effectively do in Iraq. We’ve spent four years there and have not been able to quell the violence. If the place is headed for civil war, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and we certainly don’t want to get caught in the middle. The only reasonable option is to get out now before more Americans die.
The second serious option is heard on the right. We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it’s too soon to give up hope. The surge is already producing some results. Bombing deaths are down by at least a third. Execution-style slayings have been cut in half. An oil agreement has been reached, tribes in Anbar Province are chasing Al Qaeda, cross-sectarian political blocs are emerging. We should perhaps build on the promise of the surge with regional diplomacy or a soft partition, but we certainly should not set timetables for withdrawal.
The trouble is that these two positions are irreconcilable. I differ with Brooks in that I think at least some in the congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are serious, and are trying to find and articulate a vision of the broader security interests our country has in the middle East.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has a new book out about how the last three American administrations have dealt with the Middle East. I find myself wanting to read it, and not just because it is being billed by some as a manifesto for Barack Obama. Here’s a review.
what those supporting the action in Iraq and this “War” in general either fail, or neglect, to do, is read history.
reasons behind certain Arab actions (Islamofascism is an inaccurate, concocted word, along the lines of “feminazi” to typify actions into one neat cubbyhole.
Western European, particularly Britain’s, and U.S. actions have given us enemies, not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.
the way the Big Bully of the world, the U.S., has dealt with the Third World has created much enmity.
then there is the subject of the Nation of Israel. As more and more Palestinian lands are taken, and the U.S. sides with Israel, animosity will coninue to grow.
Arab extremism has arisen from U.S. supporting certain behaviors,such as Israel’s, and Shah Pahlevi of Iran (well documented).
the WTC actions stem from Third World Countries being mainly left out of the prosperity of the Developed Countries, or at best, exploited (take Nigeria and oil, for example.
religion in this case, is not the backbone of violence against the U.S., but it is used as a rallying point for over a billion of the world’s population.
are we winning in Iraq? Less than a year ago, Coalition forces could safely control no more than a third of the country. at that time, administration reports were glowing about our “successful” war (and peace) effort. So why should we believe similar reports now.
Afghanistan is under less coaltion control now than it was even a year ago when the military reported that over 70% of the countryside was unsafe. The Bush Admininstration is asking NATO to provide more personnel to stave off a possible collapse (or near collapse) of our efforts in that country.
and the war, if continued on its present course . . . ? — I don’t see any reason that it would not expand throughout more of the Arab World. this can be an endless war, and it is accepted in even conservative circles (Rocky Mountain News) that, as far as Iraq is concerned, 1. –it was a big mistake to embark on in the first place; and 2. — It could lead to a worldwide theatre that could deplete our economy, prestige in the world, and manpower tremendously so that we might end up a shell of our former self as a country.
a reasonable and honorable exit from Iraq would not be a defeat; but it would prevent a defeat of a magnitude unimagined.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On Violence
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate…. Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. “