Monday, August 02, 2010

The Afgan Fail

Looks like it's on, folks.

In two years, nation-building will have failed conclusively in Afghanistan. The impermanence of its accomplishments in Iraq are already all too evident. The post-election stalemate between the incumbent Maliki and apparent winner Allawi has continued since March, accompanied by ever-increasing violence by a resurgent al-Qaeda.

That from Jed Babbin of Human Events, writing for the American Spectator.

But The Trouble With Neocons hardly begins or ends with foolishness like "nation-building."

[Irving Kristol, a founding neo-con, stated that] neoconservatives like to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes. But their emphasis on economic growth leads them to embrace governmental spending far more than small-government conservatives do. He rejected Hayek's thesis that we are on a "road to serfdom" and said that "…sometimes we must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth." This was George Bush's "big government conservatism" and it failed comprehensively.

Babbin gets more specific. While GWB's "you are for us or against us" line was correct, GWB simply failed to go after the money behind the terrorists, principally Saudi Arabia. One could cynically speculate on the reason for that...

And of course, Obama is even worse.

Our young president apparently lacks the courage of Harry Potter, the fictional young wizard who dared say the name of his ultimate enemy, "Voldemort," aloud. The "National Security Strategy" is a presidential statement to Congress required of each new administration. The terms "jihad" and "Islamic extremism" are banned from the one Obama is about to release. How can you defeat that which you lack the courage to name?

Babbin takes the Gingrich position: that Islam is an ideology which must be destroyed.

That deserves some discussion.

But "Nation Building" does NOT deserve discussion. It should simply be dumped.


Anonymous said...

Babbin takes the Gingrich position: that Islam is an ideology which must be destroyed.

That deserves some discussion.

Careful, Dad29, wiping out an entire religion also constitutes as a jihad and extremism. Do you really want to go down that road??? You'd be no better than the terrorists. What, you got the monopoly of truth on your side? Ha, ha, ha. That thought process is the mentality of religious zealots!

Now, if you are talking about eradicating the extremist element within a religion, well, good luck in that undertaking! Just how do you suppose getting rid of fundamentalist Islam is even possible, i.e. a "measurable goal". Because the only way to destroy an ideology in our modern age is the use of genocide. You want to go down that route, too?

No one is going to change the minds of those individuals who interpret a holy book in their own manner. You, of all people, know that!

Dad29 said...

You mis-read my comment.

"Deserves discussion" means exactly that. I'm certainly NOT of the camp which believes that Islam should be wiped out.

But it is also very clear that Islam, as a system, is a serious danger to the West.

Anonymous said...

So, in the comments section you state "Why, no, I don't believe Islam should be wiped out" to free your guilty conscious.

Why not make that clarification for all to see rather than lead readers into thinking you are in favor of eradicating that ideology?

Hmmm, if it "deserves some discussion", then getting rid of Islam entirely is a legitimate cause that Christians could support, correct? That's what you wanted your readers to think, don't kid yourself, until someone busted you out.

Next time, be CLEAR so people don't "mis-read" your comment.

Dad29 said...

I write my blog.

You can write your own. Title it "anonymous."

The best way to wipe out Islam is to evangelize. Catholicism, specifically.

But that may not complete the task. Given that Islam is an "exclusive" heresy, other means may have to be utilized in some cases.

Anonymous said...

You're speaking from both sides of your mouth. You say "evangelize" is the preferred method, then you say "other means" may have to be implemented to achieve the desired effect.

Mmmm, I wonder what means? Giving out blankets laced with smallpox comes to mind. No problem there, right?

If you are not specifically denouncing the use of violence to eliminate Islam, then you are no better than those radical Muslims who employ such methods.

May God have mercy on your soul.
Unless you believe God would approve of the killing of infidels.

Pope Innocent IV certainly thought that way.

"In Quid super his, Innocent IV, asked the question "[I]s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess or which belongs to them?" and held that while Infidels had a right to dominium (right to rule themselves and choose their own governments), however the pope, as the Vicar of Christ, de jure possessed the care of their souls and had the right to politically intervene in their affairs if their ruler violated or allowed his subjects to violate a Christian and Euro-centric normative conception of Natural law, such as sexual perversion or idolatry.[18] He also held that he had an obligation to send missionaries to infidel lands, and that if they were prevented from entering or preaching, then the pope was justified in dispatching Christian forces accompanied with missionaries to invade those lands, as Innocent stated simply "If the infidels do not obey, they ought to be compelled by the secular arm and war may be declared upon them by the pope, and nobody else."[19] This was however not a reciprocal right and non-Christian missionaries such as those of Muslims could not be allowed to preach in Europe "because they are in error and we are on a righteous path."

Anonymous said...

Question--Was the pope "wrong" in advocating what amounts to genocide?

Or, since he is "infalliable", then good Christians ought to be following through with Innocent's pronouncment, lest they be ostracized from the Church?