Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The long, long trail of appeasement , capitulation and death

We are at war.

We, the people of the west are at war with people who wish to destroy us.

It's a different war than we're used to, an asymmetric war -- a so-called fourth-generation war -- so some folk still don't recognise we're in a state of war (or don't want to recognise it), but we are under sustained attack and have been for some time.

That's not scare-mongering. That's just the way it is. Like it or not, we are at war. We didn't start this war, but a litany of appeasement by those under attack has fanned its flames, encouraged the attackers and emboldened the growth of violence.

It's not caused bthe war in Iraq, US foreign policy or oil. It was started by Islamo-totalitarians who by their own admission "worship death" as we in the west worship life; who want the prosperous, freedom-loving west dead, as dead as their own dark souls; and who see the cowardly west as easy prey.

On this last point at least, they're right. There is an essential difference between the essentially individualistic, prosperous, freedom-loving civilisation of the west and the stone-age culture that has declared war on it. Said Osama bin Laden on behalf of those who declared war:
“We love death. The [west] loves life. That is the difference between us two.” 
On that, we agree. In the name of those who do love life and who treasure the life-loving civilisation of the west, on this anniversary of the most visible attack on the west and all it stands for, consider all that led to it: a series of snubs, trial balloons and atrocities, the tepid and pathetic response to most of which emboldened those who love death to even greater atrocities, and the supporters of the death-worshippers to even greater support, both financial and logistical.

Just as it did in the thirties, appeasement led not to peace but to escalation. Both the perpetrators and the succourers smelt the fear and they smelt the cowardice, and if they know anything at all they can tell that smell, and like cockroaches of fear they know how to feed off it--and for over fifty years they've had an awful lot of food to sustain them and make them stronger:
Each of these direct attacks on the west was met with appeasement, apology and capitulation. Each of them resulted in the (correct) assessment that the west was morally weak, that there would be no negative consequences for either perpetrators or supporter, and emboldened further escalation. The attacks on September 11 and after saw the culmination of this attitude, and an outbreak of massive, violent and orchestrated attacks on civilians.
It's not a matter of the western countries or western leaders deciding now to declare war on Islamo-totalitarians--although that should have been done on Day One. It's a matter of recognising that the west, like it or not, is already at war with Islamo-totalitarians. Fighting them isn't a matter or law enforcement, with all the strings around such a battle; it is war, and we're already in it. As SOLO Chief executive John Gagnon said, "The words of Patrick Henry are as applicable today as they were in 1775: 'Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!'"

How to fight such an asymmetric war against an enemy like this?
  • Consider this: No terrorist organisation can survive without the oxygen of financial, logistical and materiel support. They need weapons to deliver, places to train and recruit, and money with which to fund their campaigns. It takes a government either willing to help, or willing to turn its back to provide this. It's hard to track down terrorists, but not so hard to identify those who give them succour -- what's hard is having the balls to so something about it once you do while the terrorists' 'useful idiots' and other allies bleat at home about anything that's done.
  • Consider this: this is as much an ideological war as it is an actual hot war. For the blood-soaked voices from the stone age the free and prosperous west is a personal affront; their war on the west is the last gap of the Dark Age they've submitted to themselves and wish to impose on the rest of the world. Their own ideology has failed at everything but the production of penury and death, and now it's all they have left. "They know how to die." Meanwhile, the ideological war on behalf of the west has yet to even be fully engaged, and in most of the west is undercut by the voices of "useful idiots" from the academies who use the freedom of the west only to attack and undercut it. A principled, rational, consistent, philosophical defence of the ideas that support freedom and western civilisation is long overdue; the ideas of reason, of individualism, of property rights and capitalism must be defended against their ideological attackers, but how many even know where to start? As Ayn Rand pointed out in defending those ideas herself so eloquently, "A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war." It is a battle that her philosophy of Objectivism makes the philosophical warrior very well-equipped to fight. But time's a'wasting -- as the antics of Ahmedinijad make clear enough, a real nuclear war is not entirely an impossibility.
  • And consider this too: Is it already five minutes to midnight in that particular war?
And finally, meditate on this; "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Wilful blindness is not an argument. It's an evasion. And evasion hasn't worked. Never has.
 
RELATED: War, Religion, Politics-World

Labels: , , , ,

16 Comments:

Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

I thought that Reagan didn't appease the muslim world during his presidency. If September 11, occured when he was in office, then muslims would have seen what a proper reaction is like. He would have done something about Iran such as striking the nuclear facilities. He would have given a finger to the UN or to the EU (except UK). Bush should give Iran, the strongest warning, to give up its nuclear program or give in to the tomahawks.

9/12/2006 01:18:00 am  
Blogger Paula said...

Reagan ran from Beirut after the barracks bombing, FF.

Great post, PC!

9/12/2006 01:47:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

Amen! A great post.
If only the useful idiots would wake up and "get it" too.....

9/12/2006 06:14:00 am  
Anonymous AngloAmerican said...

The West is not the only place where appeasers and apologists abound. The Muslim world has continued to provide a place where the terrorists can thrive. The ordinary Moslem has generally done nothing to forestall the rise of Islamic extremism and have often aided and abetted it. When given a helping hand to rise above the squalid thinking of the 7th century they have consistently failed to see the light and have either chosen to do nothing or actively supported terrorist entities.

The Middle East has provided the terrorists with a fertile ground of corruption, cowardice, deranged cynicism, religious delusions, death cultism, squalor, fascism and greed. Democratisation was seen as the great hope for the region yet they have used democracy to legitimise terrorist organisations and bring them to power in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and will do so in Iraq and Egypt and God knows where else.

The West has weakened itself by developing a culture where all live as bourgeois coddled princes unwilling to defend what their forebears have built. A society largely unwilling to make sacrifices even as basic as having enough children to replace themselves. There is little hope of an early end or a happy end to this long war. In the long term the contest is more equal than it would first appear. The enemy has great patience and we appear to have none – not a good thing in a long war.

9/12/2006 07:11:00 am  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

angloamerican,

If you regard having children as a sacrifice, you shouldn't have children.

9/12/2006 01:06:00 pm  
Blogger Sean said...

I suspect it'll take a mushroom cloud over a western city before we snap out of our delusions. But after that, I have no doubt the problem will be dealt with - at a cost in blood that'll make the last century look positively tranquil. Iran's handful of atomic bombs vs our tens of thousands of the thermonuclear variety? No contest - they lose big time.

9/12/2006 04:40:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

Summary of this post :

All failures can be explained away by saying we just have not killed enough people yet.

What escalation? No attacks on US soil in 5 years. Yet you can't even take out a library book in the US without the govt knowing about it. Land of the free my arse.

Saying something 1000 times on your blog doesn't make you right.

9/12/2006 05:43:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

"Yet you can't even take out a library book in the US without the govt knowing about it"

You have evidence to support that statement?

9/12/2006 06:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Ruth said...
[Yet you can't even take out a library book in the US without the govt knowing about it.]

This is an arbitrary claim which must be thrown out completely as there is no evidence at all to support it. I think, Ruth must have been watching the movie 'Conspiracy Theory' starring Mel Gibson & Julia Roberts. In this movie, the CIA tracked certain book titles borrowed from public library and alerted Langley HQ.

Ruth, the Conspiracy Theory was a fiction movie. The US government doesn't do that. The public library data is not centralised, therefore they can't track you for what book titles you're loaning.

Ruth said...
[Land of the free my arse.]

In fact the US is still the land of the free. Do we have more freedom here in NZ than in the US? Can you give an example?

9/12/2006 07:55:00 pm  
Anonymous blah said...

I don't think Reagan "capitulated" after the Marine barracks were bombed, it was more a case of honestly asking whether whatever the US hoped to achieve in Lebanon at the time (basically, cleaning up Israel's mess) was worth the hassle and concluding that it wasn't.

Besides they recovered their mojo by rescuing the free world from the Grenadan threat a little while later.

Given how poorly the US military performed when Carter did decide to stop capitulating (Operation Eagle Claw, anyone?), it's open to question whether a more forceful approach from that lot would have worked anyway. Besides, the US was doing plenty about Iran in the 80's by encouraging Saddam Hussein to attack them and then supporting him to the hilt during one of the most bloody and pointless conflicts of modern times. But of course it's "ahem" not PC to mention stuff like that when wer'e discussing the Good Ol' US of A.

Joking aside, I find it deeply ironic that you rail (correctly) against the "death worshipping" likes of Bin Laden while the regular contributors to your blog openly salivate at the notion of inflicting mass slaughter on Muslims (take a bow, falafulu!)without so much as a peep from you.

9/12/2006 08:11:00 pm  
Anonymous AngloAmerican said...

Suggesting a strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran is hardly openly salivating at the notion of inflicting mass slaughter on Muslims. When has anyone here ever said anything remotely like, “ we love death…” or “ kill those that mock Islam”,or “ kill the infidels”? At most, commenters are suggesting a disproportionate violent response to deter further aggression.

9/12/2006 09:36:00 pm  
Anonymous angloamerican said...

If you regard having children as a sacrifice, you shouldn't have children.
Duncan Bayne

…Okaay…how about “ a society unwilling to see the blessings of having enough children to replace themselves” ?
Yet what family man hasn’t thought about the sacrifices needed in time and money supporting an extra child? You know what I mean.
Looking at your photo, Duncan you appear quite young, take it from me, sacrifices are required.

9/12/2006 09:40:00 pm  
Anonymous blah said...

"At most commentators are suggesting a disproportionate violent response to deter further aggression."

Given that al-Quaeda and it's offshoots are "non-state actors" to use the popular phrase, how on earth is a disproportionate violent response on a particular state going to deter them? If anything it helps them recruit people.

And if it's Iran your'e referring to, then what "future aggression"? Where's the current aggression?

Beside's, Sean unwittingly put his finger on an aspect of this whole affair that you seem to be missing. Namely, even if Iran does build a bomb (and it could still be up to ten years away from it), the United States still has tens of thousands of them. It's called deterrence. If it worked with the Soviet Union it will certainly work with Iran.

And frankly, what makes you think that the US can be trusted with nukes any more than Iran could?

9/12/2006 11:36:00 pm  
Blogger Michael said...

I was in Dubai on the weekend - supposedly a western looking, moderate Islamic Nation.

The Newspaper Banner Headline on the Iranians proposal to suspend enriching Uranium was:

"Republicans in trouble: Bush now unable to rally support for November elections."

The article didn't mention Bush, the Republicans, or the mid-term elections once.

9/13/2006 02:53:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

blah said...
[the notion of inflicting mass slaughter on Muslims (take a bow, falafulu!)Without so much as a peep from you.]

Well, striking a military target is not mass slaughter isn't it? Your kind of reasoning is more similar to Keith Locke. That is don't do anything at all because it will kill an ant. Mr. Locke opposed the US military action in Afghanistan, because there would be civilian deaths. In the history of human conflicts there have always been casualties involved. We're human and we made errors, even the best missile technology and guiding software systems that can be built into tomahawk cruise missiles, there is a small likelihood that it can go wrong.

How about you try and compare targeted striking of military facilities with Bin Laden's, Hamas, Hezbolla’s random targeting of civilian population? If you can see the difference, then you have answered your question already. No need for me to post again and debate with you. I want you to tell me if there is a difference, that's all I need to know.


blah said...
[And frankly, what makes you think that the US can be trusted with nukes any more than Iran could?]

Yes, the US can be trusted with nukes because it is not a totalitarian system. Decision to use nuclear weapons must be a consensus of a few including cabinet members, members of the senate armed services comittee, etc, leader of the oppositition party, some senior members of congress, etc.

For Iran as a totalitarian system, the decision to use a nuclear weapon is solely in the hands of the Ayatollah Khomeini and no one else. A single person makes the decision, whether it is suicidal or not, everyone must followed. Again, can you spot the difference here?

9/13/2006 03:01:00 am  
Anonymous angloamerican said...

If it worked with the Soviet Union it will certainly work with Iran.

The Soviets didn’t have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven. The Soviets didn’t believe that innocent believers killed in the conflagration would be martyrs too, eligible for all the benefits.

And if it's Iran your'e referring to, then what "future aggression"? Where's the current aggression?
Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, supports terrorists, funnels weapons to terror organisations in Iraq and Lebanon, threatens the oil routes, promotes suicide bombings and are generally just not our sort of people. The hostage crisis is also a not too distant memory.

9/13/2006 06:10:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home