Wednesday, August 31, 2005

We really miss the daily read.

Giants indead. Wow! R.E.A.D T.H.E. C.O.M.M.E.N.T.S

Ok, now that I've read all the commentary myself - including the original via link - I can say it... who won?

The important question in my mind (without any pessimism at all) is, can we lose? I'm talking about the actual destruction of our country. I think the answer is that, while it's not likely it is possible.

Bill thinks we are not doing enough, SDB says we're doing good enough.

I have to side with Bill on this, without disagreeing with SDB's argument. I think Bill is entirely right that cold war analogies miss some points. We are not in the same stand-off situation we were in then. Although there is the possibility of a hot war against nuclear armed opponents, China, Russia or others using Islamic nations as channels, it is a distant possibility unless we appear vulnerable. Even the aftermath of Katrina would not indicate a vulnerability sufficient to exploit. (Now if Yellowstone decides to blow, all bets are off.)

I believe everyone is arguing that it's about hearts and minds and can be summed up with these two quotes...

GWB said:

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success."

FDR said:

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God."

While I applaud what GWB said, it appears quite... uh... effeminate? compared to FDR.

Why the difference? I think it's because of the other enemy, those living in this country that hate it. That's one battle that can be lost. It's not the only one.

Right now there's rioting and looting in the wake of Katrina. Many more are going to die. The limits of local government (to the state level) while not world shattering are still being exposed for all to see. Could it happen on the national level?

Not likely, but yes it could. The question is what makes the possibility of this danger more likely... going after the regimes that support terror now, or hoping the enlightenment of radicals will fight our war for us?

What prevents us from following FDR's lead? Now we're back to the enemies within.

On a personal note, it's good to see SDB making a public argument. I used to read his blog several times in a day (and never missed a day.) He and Rand are the reason I blog.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home