Comment of the Day

« MP3 of the Week | Main | When Will Josh Create His First Videogame? »

Comment of the Day

There are some people who don’t comment on my blog often, but when they do, it’s always spot on. Druce is one of those people and when he commented on the subject of the “war on islamofacism”, I just nodded my head. So here is the most sensible thing I’ve heard on the topic in a long time:

how can anybody even think a problem like 'Islamo-fascism' can be 'solved'?

That's like winning a 'war on racism', or 'war on poverty', 'war on drugs', or 'war on pornography'. Why not a 'war on violence' or a 'war on war?'

Human imperfections can't be solved, but some people are capable of managing them rationally, while others self-destruct and bring everyone else down with them. Think of something like the UN as an AA meeting for the world.

Thinking there is a 'final solution' to complex problems that have been part of humanity since the dawn of time is what creates these catastrophes in the first place.

Posted by: druce | Aug 10, 2006 10:00:28 AM

August 14, 2006 Politics | Comments (15)

Comments

link?

Posted by: rafi | Aug 14, 2006 10:00:15 AM

yes, fred, it might seem dificult, but as opposed to "racism" or "poverty", islamic fascists really want to kill you. as technology and communications - something you know about very well - expands, cheapens and becomes widely available in ways never previously imagined, their ability to organize and kill is even greater.

honestly, if they wanted to live in the 3rd century and subject women, gays or anyone in their society to that of a lower-class slave, at this point, i could care less.

but they want more than that. an islamic fundamentalist views the world as 2 places - the islamic world, and that which will submit to islam, and they use their religion to justify senseless killing. even spain is considered conquered islamic terrirtory, so, in their sick minds, the koran justifies violence to reclaim it.

the news is filled with indignation over a few deaths caused by israelis, but it masks the wholeale killing perpetrated by muslims in africa, asia and anywhere else some cleric deems it permissable. my point is, life is very cheap to them and they have no porblem killing thier own if it hastens your death.

look at the latest british based airline plot. they were going to use their babies' formula as cover for explosives that will kill everyone. that is soemthing, fred, you should be very concerned about.

if you could ignore it, i'd say fine, We can leave our heads in the sand if its easier. but in this smaller, connected world of pathological killers, this threat can not be ignored.

unfortunately, either laziness or a bizare political correctness, where the left in europe and america - who wince at practicing christians - excuse islamic fanaticism in the name of some sort of bizarre cultural diversity, prevents too many from grasping that we are really in a war with thse people.

we tend to view things in the course of days or weeks, so if things are quiet for a month or two, we say, "what war, lets forget about this." for islamists, this fight is a hundred year battle, and technologically empowered, it is just getting started.

Posted by: bryan | Aug 14, 2006 10:52:36 AM

honestly, if they wanted to live in the 3rd century and subject women, gays or anyone in their society to that of a lower-class slave, at this point, i could care less.

if you could ignore it, i'd say fine, We can leave our heads in the sand if its easier. but in this smaller, connected world of pathological killers, this threat can not be ignored.

Posted by: bryan | Aug 14, 2006 10:53:08 AM

honestly, if they wanted to live in the 3rd century and subject women, gays or anyone in their society to that of a lower-class slave, at this point, i could care less.

if you could ignore it, i'd say fine, We can leave our heads in the sand if its easier. but in this smaller, connected world of pathological killers, this threat can not be ignored.

Posted by: bryan | Aug 14, 2006 10:53:43 AM

sorry about the multiple comments. typepad froze up for me. obviously, i cant delete the extras.

anyway, i love your blog. big fan.

Posted by: bryan | Aug 14, 2006 10:56:27 AM

if it's a hundred-year war, all the more reason to pick the battles you can win.

what Bush is doing is the hold'em equivalent of having a huge stack of chips and a half-decent hand like K10 and you put the guy with the small stack all-in. And he's sitting there with AJ or a pair of jacks and happily calls. Do it once and it's playing to your strength. Do it twice and you're not the guy with the big stack anymore.

Posted by: druce | Aug 14, 2006 11:03:37 AM

druce,

i agree, iraq was a misstep. we could debate all day the reasoning for doing it, but bush chose the wrong battle.

my problem, however, is that outside of iraq, which was a misstep, too many people dont believe we're in a larger battle at all.

Posted by: bryan | Aug 14, 2006 11:11:34 AM

Bryan,

Great solid comments....

You are dead on in your description as well as, scope of the problem.

It is easier to ignore problems and troubling issues that confront our world....based on the orginal post that fred references above......we would never have dealt with

1) Germany and their Nazi past
2) Japan and their aggressive past

quote:
"Thinking there is a 'final solution' to complex problems that have been part of humanity since the dawn of time is what creates these catastrophes in the first place. "

This is wrong.

Unfortunately, there is a way to deal with complex issues, it is hard, it does require sacrifice -- but most of all it requires a complete understanding of the enemy you face and their intentions.

Sadly, the scope and enormity of this problem, is simply too great for many to contemplate dealing with.......

So, in essence by continuing to push it away, ignore it - or better yet, blame it on SOMEONE else...many good people think it will simply disappear.

Just like 1939, it won't.

Evil needs to be identified, confronted, and defeated.

None of the 3 characteristics in the above sentence has been accomplished. Until it honestly happens, we will all be victims.

The question is, "what will be the TIPPING POINT that liberals/Democrats (not to mention Europeans) begin to see the violent nature of the enemy we are facing?"

Will it be the loss of a American city?
100,000 deaths?
1,000,000?

Whatever it is, there will be a point at which our nation is galvanized to comprehend the problem.

Sadly, it is NOT today.

Posted by: andym | Aug 14, 2006 11:15:42 AM

Wow, the fact that you find those comments spot on is really frightening. How many American lives would you need to see sacrificed before seeking the "final solution" seemed like a reasonable idea.

I generally like the site, but find my eyes glazing over when I have to wade through the limousine liberal politics.

Posted by: Derek | Aug 14, 2006 1:09:42 PM

Except the UN is not something to look to for hints of success. Talk about an impotent organization!

Posted by: Dave | Aug 14, 2006 5:27:44 PM

Destabilizing the mideast is exactly what is needed. Until then, it's the same old stuff that continues to not work.

Hezbollah will rearm itself, set up more human shields, and launch more attacks on Israel. Negotiating with those who want you to die merely emboldens them.

The only answer is for Israel to completely crush Lebanon and deliver a humiliating defeat. And to do that, you have to take the war to the people.

I truly believe that the crushing defeat delivered to both Japan and Germany in world war two played an instrumental role in their transformation.

Posted by: eric johnson | Aug 14, 2006 6:26:21 PM

I fully endorse the view that the concept of a War on Terror is nonsense.

I do, however, want to object to the term 'Islamo-fascism.' I am not familiar with druce's other comments, so I don't know how he's using the term, but I think that it's wrong to continue to use it. Firstly, not all terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists, and many. It's also an inaccurate use of the word fascism. (The closest thing to fascism, and it is only proto-fascist, is the current U.S. government. See. e.g., the Project for the OLD American Century's web site for the application of the 14 principles of fascism to the current political climate. I'm not sure what Fred's linking policy is, so I won't post a link, but it's easily googleable.)

Part of the reason that this use is a problem is that it overhypes the risks of a certain kind of terrorism (bombs on planes vs. loose nukes)when it emphasizes the Islamo portion. It also tends to cheapen the meaning of the word fascist. It doesn't mean much anymore to compare anyone to the Nazis, since people tend to do it so easily, and it's also diminishes the importance of the suffering that people experienced at the hands of the Nazis or Stalin or Pol Pot.

Posted by: Abby | Aug 14, 2006 6:52:35 PM

Fascism is the product of organised governments that were defeat-able (once you destroyed the power apparatus you had mostly done the job).

The same does not apply to terrorism, which is largely a new phenomenon for the US. You have not yet realised that a small population group that is fighting with rules you do not understand is not defeated by war.

Look at Northern Ireland: a well defined territory, a known entity, and yet no armed effort ever managed to stem the tide. Or look at the Basque country, same story. Or Corsica. And so on...

Another piece of learning is the Vietnam war: a widely accepted reason why the US lost the war is that Viet Cong were able to tune the intensity of the conflict. They could have fought on for 20 years, and not amount of intelligence or armed power would have made a difference. Unless of course you razed the country ...

"War" is not a concept that is adapted to the terror threat. It is a distributed grassroots movement that is here to stay. So you have to take the long-term view: (a) accept and brace yourself that more terror acts will be committed and won't be stopped (b) win a very long-term battle for the hearts and minds of the target populations -- take the Palestinians out of their camps, give them a future (c) stop overextending yourself internationally and accept that some countries are going to go backwards -- support local intelligentsia and counterpower, but don't step in (d) finish the job in Afghanistan as a first step.

There is no short-term solution, there is no military solution, unless you kill them all. I think we should learn to live with that. And you have to help the populations you hate to stem the long-term tide.

Finally I do agree that democracies are complacent. We need to both protect our civil liberties at home and the values that we have developed, and work with the Islam communities to help their moderate wings survive and thrive. And we need to take a strong stance where they cross the line: diversity has its limits.

Posted by: Fred Destin | Aug 15, 2006 8:11:34 AM

Regarding bryan, andym and others' comments, you predictably in shockingly miss the point. Like Lew Rockwell says, "today’s conservatives are party men and women not unlike those we saw in totalitarian countries, people who spout the line and slay the enemy without a thought as to the principles involved." (http://tinyurl.com/g2ho8)

Put down the talking points, turn down Rush and focus, people:

No one is disputing that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism--by whatever name we choose to call it--is anything other than a virulent, murderous plague.

Do you get that? I am a New York Democrat, I am the great blue bogeyman. I want a balanced budget, less government and more security.

Did I hear a circuit pop? I smell plastic burning.

I too agree that we need to confront AQ and its ilk. I also am willing to sarcrifice some degree of tax dollars and privacy for increased security... Ben Franklin was a kite-flying dandy.

What I do not agree with (and what a lot of my fellow Americans do not agree with if recent opinion polls can be relied upon at all) is that the manner in which we have spent vast sums of American blood, money, credibility and international political capital in the interest of achieving these goals and gotten minimal if any returns.

The plan sucked and the results suck nearly as bad.

Would 135,000 troops scouring the tribal regions of Afghanistan put a bigger or smaller dent in AQ's leadership? Maybe we should have invaded the Peshwar? Maybe we should have sat tight in Afghanistan and kept our powder dry for Iran? Maybe we should have followed CIA's 7-pronged strategic plan for eliminating terrorists around the world?

These alternative courses of action that were all available as options in 2002. How can anyone not be dismayed that Bush/Cheney conjoured up this Quixotic scheme instead of the reasoned alternatives (and then unleashed Rummy to execute it, Keystone Kops style)?

I completely believe, this administration gets what's at stake. But they've also proven themselves strategically and tactically incompetent in working towards that vision.

It has nothing to do with being a limo liberal or whatever your useless stereotypes are. Frankly, like the guy in the White House, you don't know squat about your supposed enemy.

When you spend all your time working of some cartoony portrait-of-a-democrat stereotype, it feels like an attempt to divert the discussion away from the real issue every one of us should be worried about: there is a grave threat facing America and we don't have a clue about how to start addressing it effectively.

It's about results mattering. It's about pragmatic, effective stewardship of the country and its most vital resources.

Like Fred Destin says above, the problem isn't that we're advocating only peaceful, puppydog friendly solutions. The problem is that the current approach of trying to solve this via wholesale military occupation will not be effective now or in the future. What do we need to do next, occupy East London ourselves?

Posted by: Grant | Aug 15, 2006 9:45:01 AM

Whether you lose 2 buildings or 2 cities, you fight at the time and place where you have the edge.

Bush says fight over there so you don't have to fight here. Over there they have the edge, and you pin down the army, lose soldiers, spend your money, alienate your allies, and motivate your enemy.

Whether you think the threat is big or small, there's no situation that you can't make worse by not knowing what you're doing. That's the problem, not public opinion or supposed wishy-washy Democrats.

If I had wanted to do maximum harm to US interests, I would have told Bush, if you invade the Middle East, the neocons can indulge their imperial ambitions, Rove can have an issue for you to run on, and you can show up your father. And apparently that's exactly what the Iranian agents like Chalabi did.

Now Iran will have the bomb, influence and control in Iraq, and neighbors with itchy trigger fingers. Feel safer yet?

History has been on our side vs. the Muslim world since around the 1400s. While we've been worrying about 'existential' threats from some goofball terrorists, we owe the Chinese one trillion dollars, and Toyota just passed GM as the largest car company.

Posted by: druce | Aug 16, 2006 7:02:36 AM

A VC

Musings of a VC in NYC