Victor Davis Hanson surmises America has two choices concerning Iraq and Afghanistan:
Basically Hanson is saying one path is easy but could lead to increased antagonism from Islamofascist terrorists. The other path is hard yet if successful, could lead to further American soldiers dieing but aiding in a transformation of an economic poverty structure wrapped around despotic rule.
The first option is of little gamble and risk yet would perpetuate a hatred of the West and continued Islamofascist influence toward Mohammedans accepting the radical version preached by Wahhabists and Twelver Shi’ites. My opinion this road will eventually lead to a global confrontation that Mohammedans cannot win due to resources, however they will be able to exact great devastation as the result of oil acquired money buying WMD capabilities.
The second path is directly abhorrent to the politically correct Left in both Europe and America, as well as a growing amount of pro-Arab Republicans. Why? It requires a gamble of long term blood, money and resources that may or may not succeed. I personally am leaning to the opinion that Western Democratic principles cannot even be accepted by a so-called moderate Mohammedanism. The absolute revulsion of anything not Mohammedan is a superiority complex programmed into their religious/civic ideology from the days of their so-called prophet.
I think the West should embark on a path that the Third World certainly would call imperialism. That is to force a form of democracy on the Middle East that Mohammedanism could live with even though it would still be repugnant to the West. A Mohammedan democracy would be a theocratic democracy in which women and non-Mohammedans would suffer a second or sub class status. However there would be a rule of law. This is the compromise the West should embark on political experimentation.
Then there is the issue of Mohammedan immigration to the West. Again, this is not a politically correct solution; however it is solution that has worked in the past to protect European culture. Mohammedans should be welcome in the West as long as they do not expect to be treated differently than Western Culture. I say Western Culture because Europe currently is more secular and humanistic and America is more religious with a leaning toward (gag) secular humanism.
Secular Humanism is as much unacceptable to Mohammedan thought as it is to the Christian Right in America. Sharia Law cannot be accepted as one rule for Mohammedans in the West while the West continues with its Western Heritage of Liberty and Rights. Eventually the West would fall to pieces into a Dark Age of lawlessness as Westerners became fed up with Mohammedans and visa-a-versa.
Sounds harsh huh? I do not about you but I am not willing to give up special privileges to Mohammedans in my nation at the hurt of my Christian heritage. And though a Secular Humanist does not see it now because of a pathetic politically correct passivism, I doubt the Left is willing to give up the agenda of a humanistic society. If the West wakes up, the Slanted Right and The Slanted Left actually have a mutual enemy: it is radical Mohammedanism.
1. … [W]e can withdraw ground troops and return to punitive and conventional bombing - tit-for-tat retaliation for each attack in the future. That way, the United States stays distant and smacks the jihadists on their home bases below. Few Americans die; terrorists sometimes do. The bored media stay more concentrated on the terrorists' provocations, not on our standoff response from 30,000 feet in the clouds.
2. American forces, at great danger, can continue to change the political and economic structure of the Middle East in hopes of fostering constitutional governments that might curb terrorism for generations. This current engagement demands our soldiers fight jihadists on their vicious turf, but by our humanitarian rules. For this, we must pay the ensuing human and materiel price - all broadcast live on the evening news. (Hanson)
Basically Hanson is saying one path is easy but could lead to increased antagonism from Islamofascist terrorists. The other path is hard yet if successful, could lead to further American soldiers dieing but aiding in a transformation of an economic poverty structure wrapped around despotic rule.
The first option is of little gamble and risk yet would perpetuate a hatred of the West and continued Islamofascist influence toward Mohammedans accepting the radical version preached by Wahhabists and Twelver Shi’ites. My opinion this road will eventually lead to a global confrontation that Mohammedans cannot win due to resources, however they will be able to exact great devastation as the result of oil acquired money buying WMD capabilities.
The second path is directly abhorrent to the politically correct Left in both Europe and America, as well as a growing amount of pro-Arab Republicans. Why? It requires a gamble of long term blood, money and resources that may or may not succeed. I personally am leaning to the opinion that Western Democratic principles cannot even be accepted by a so-called moderate Mohammedanism. The absolute revulsion of anything not Mohammedan is a superiority complex programmed into their religious/civic ideology from the days of their so-called prophet.
I think the West should embark on a path that the Third World certainly would call imperialism. That is to force a form of democracy on the Middle East that Mohammedanism could live with even though it would still be repugnant to the West. A Mohammedan democracy would be a theocratic democracy in which women and non-Mohammedans would suffer a second or sub class status. However there would be a rule of law. This is the compromise the West should embark on political experimentation.
Then there is the issue of Mohammedan immigration to the West. Again, this is not a politically correct solution; however it is solution that has worked in the past to protect European culture. Mohammedans should be welcome in the West as long as they do not expect to be treated differently than Western Culture. I say Western Culture because Europe currently is more secular and humanistic and America is more religious with a leaning toward (gag) secular humanism.
Secular Humanism is as much unacceptable to Mohammedan thought as it is to the Christian Right in America. Sharia Law cannot be accepted as one rule for Mohammedans in the West while the West continues with its Western Heritage of Liberty and Rights. Eventually the West would fall to pieces into a Dark Age of lawlessness as Westerners became fed up with Mohammedans and visa-a-versa.
Sounds harsh huh? I do not about you but I am not willing to give up special privileges to Mohammedans in my nation at the hurt of my Christian heritage. And though a Secular Humanist does not see it now because of a pathetic politically correct passivism, I doubt the Left is willing to give up the agenda of a humanistic society. If the West wakes up, the Slanted Right and The Slanted Left actually have a mutual enemy: it is radical Mohammedanism.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment