Infinite Monkeys[Scroll down for the background, or click "continue reading" at the bottom of the post for links.]
First, I want to point out that how depressing it is that this debate is the most important one our country faces today, but unfortunately the candidates are unwilling (and unable, truthfully, in the current media climate) to engage in it.
Second, I understand Robb’s frustration as a paleo-con/libertarian hybrid in making sense of this war. A desire to “protect borders” while avoiding a “police state” inside those borders is the sort of contradiction that occurs when ideological philosophies collide in the absence of realism.
This is a new type of war, and it requires new thinking about how to face the enemy. Understanding that enemy is critical, and Robb is wrong that U.S. involvement in the Middle East is the cause. The goal of this enemy is conquest; the long-dreamed of extension of Islam throughout the Western world. Evidence of this is terrorism in France, Spain and Germany, and the very words of the Al Qaeda leadership about not repeating the mistakes of Andalusia (that is, tolerance of other religions which resulted ultimately in Muslims being largely driven out of Europe in the late 15th century). Make no mistake about the goals.
I don’t even know how to respond to the comment that “Similarly, we don't really know how things would have turned out if Stalin and Hitler had spent another 10-15 years killing each other. Eventually you run out of money and soldiers.” That’s obviously false, as plenty of people in the Middle East, Ireland and Africa will tell you, and there is no question that whatever resulted would not have been free, and would not have been good for the United States.
The truth is that the option Robb suggests would require the creation of a police state within Fortress America, to find and stop every single terrorist who slips through the miles of borders of this country. That, and the travel and import restrictions he suggests, should be violently repellent to any libertarian or freedom-loving person.
The only answer is to go out and break apart the terrorist organizations where they exist, aggressively and without pity.
MonkeyFight background:
1
2
3
4
Robb-
I have to concur with David on the your absurd suggestions. Sometimes it's appealing to fantasize that we could pull back from the world, curl up in the fetal position, and hide in a protective cocoon, safe and secure from the dangers out there. Unfortunately, we are not children anymore and must face reality. It's a global economy with global markets and an increasingly interconnected global trade. Your suggestions would seriously restrict free and open trade, resulting in a downturn of the US economy as well as the rest of the world's to say nothing of the economic consequences of the world-wide destabilization that would result. What do you think the price of oil would be if your little scenario played out? It is an illusion to believe that if we only drilled in Anwar or got more oil from the Canadian oil sands our energy problems would be solved.
And what is your idea of a "defensive war" fought by the United States?
World War II? Most certainly not.
World War I? Hardly.
What about the North's efforts to preserve the Union in the Civil War? If Lincoln had elected to dig in and merely defend the North, the cession of the South would have been successful and the course of history very different.
With the exception of the War of 1812, in the history of the United States there are no conflicts that I would classify as a "defensive war".
P.S. I believe that Gingrich was talking about restricting civil liberties in the event of a future attack. Can you please cite specific civil liberties that you and your grandchildren are being denied today?
Posted by: the elder at August 20, 2004 12:09 PM