InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
5,961.90
(
0.55%
)
US TECH 100
20,485.60
(
1.30%
)
Dow Jones
43,699.61
(
-0.07%
)
Brent Oil
75.13
(
0.08%
)
Bitcoin
75,843.90
(
0.27%
)
Post# of 495952
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

hap0206

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 29
Posts 15300
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/14/2003

hap0206

Member Level

Re: ieddyi post# 296056

Thursday, 10/04/2007 11:32:19 AM

Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:32:19 AM

Post# of 495952
there are some who can see the big picture
====
Muravchik presents clarity between the "talk only" and "cut and run" mode of the limited thinkers.
========
[snips & bottom paragraphs]
=======
The terrorists are the shock troops of the jihadist or radical Islamist movement, a movement whose strength is limited but substantial--far greater than, for example, that of the Communists just after Lenin seized power in Russia. Jihadism has many times more supporters, its reach is more global, it has far more resources, and it has a natural constituency that Communism only pretended to have. Lenin and his band succeeded in fastening their grip on a backward country and used it as a springboard from which their heirs could contest seriously for world domination. Who is to say how powerful a threat radical Islam could become if allowed to metastasize further?

This movement has already been at war with us for some time, and has killed us by the thousands. Bush's announcement of a "war against terror" was thus nothing more than a declaration that we had decided to fight back. Soros, Brzezinski, and Fukuyama notwithstanding, this war was not "optional." If we had declined to fight it now, we would only have to fight more desperately later. If we do not fight back, can anyone imagine that the jihadists will stop? Conversely, defeat of their cause will assuredly demoralize that movement and thin its ranks.

As for the neoconservatives, they have taken their lumps over the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the tenets of neoconservatism continue to offer the most cogent approach to the challenge that faces our country. To recapitulate those tenets one last time: (1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force.

This suggests a few priorities. First, for all our failures in Iraq, we cannot afford to accept defeat there; nor do we have to. True, our more fanciful images of what Iraq would become after Saddam's removal have gone by the boards. But there is still a world of difference between a relatively stable if troubled country and a state of anarchy.

And then there is Iran. Even if we turn a corner in Iraq, our relative success will be negated if we allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. Once it does, not only will we be haunted by the specter of nuclear terrorism, but we may be constrained by nuclear blackmail from actions we would want to take in future chapters of the war against terror.

Next, only by enlarging our military can we base strategic decisions on military need and not on the availability of forces. How is it that a nation of 300 million cannot indefinitely sustain a force level of 150,000 in a given theater, meaning one soldier for every 2,000 Americans?

Finally, our efforts to foster democracy in the Middle East must not be curtailed but prosecuted vigorously and more effectively. True, the "Arab spring" of 2005 did not turn out to be as successful as the famous "Prague spring" of 1968. But then, it took two decades for that Prague spring to yield fruit. The modest liberalization in the Middle East and the democratic ferment that we have stirred there promise further advances if we persevere.

None of this offers a complete guide to waging the war against terror. But it does amount to a coherent approach, essentially similar to the one by means of which we won the cold war. By contrast, liberals and realists have no coherent approach to suggest--or at least they have not suggested one. That, after all, is why George W. Bush, searching urgently for a response to the events of September 11, stumbled into the arms of neoconservatism, unlikely though the match seemed. One can always wish that policies were executed better, but for a strategy in the war that has been imposed upon us, neoconservatism remains the only game in town.

Mr. Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Exporting Democracy, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, and The Future of the United Nations." This article appears in the October issue of Commentary.


http://opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010684
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up