Why We Are Safer

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by wonderwench, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. wonderwench
    Offline

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    An excellent commentary by Charles Krauthammer on why we are safer due to the removal of Saddam Hussein.

    The War on Terrorism has liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, enabling these two countries to begin the first steps towards self-government and democracy; caused Libya and Iran to agree to arms inspections; caused DPRK to re-open negotiations towards nuclear disarmament; flipped Pakistan to assist in combating instead of exporting terrorism....

    This is why the Dems will lose in 2004. They just don't get it.


    "One of the attacks they don't bring up very often anymore is the Saddam Hussein thing, that it's not safer since Saddam Hussein's been captured -- because we now have 23 troops killed and we're having fighter planes escorting passenger jets through American airspace. I noticed that line of attack disappeared fairly quickly."


    -- Howard Dean, Newsweek, Jan. 12 issue

    Howard Dean may end up as a footnote in history, but he has already earned a place in the dictionary as the illustration accompanying the word smug. He claims that not only was he right that we are not safer with Saddam Hussein captured; not only has he already been vindicated by history, all 21 days of it; but he has been so obviously vindicated that his opponents, bowing to his superior wisdom, have stopped their attacks on this point.

    They have not. He has been peppered with questions about this statement, most recently during the Jan. 4 Iowa debate. How could he not? The idea that we are not safer (a) because we are still losing troops and (b) because al Qaeda has not been extinguished, amounts to an open-court confession of cluelessness on foreign policy.

    The first is the equivalent of saying that we were not safer after D-Day because we were still losing troops in Europe. In war, a strategic turning point makes you safer because it hastens victory, hastens the ultimate elimination of the hostile power, hastens the return home of the troops. It does not mean there is an immediate cessation, or even a diminution, of casualties (see: Battle of the Bulge).

    The other part of the statement -- we cannot be safer because we are still threatened by terrorism -- is even more telling. It rests on the wider notion, shared not just by Dean but by many Democrats, that so long as al Qaeda is active, we are never any safer. This rests on the remarkable assumption that we have a single enemy in the world, al Qaeda, and that it and it alone defines "safety."

    It is hard to believe that serious people can have so absurdly narrow a vision of American national security. The fact is that we have other enemies in the world.

    Saddam Hussein was one of them, and he is gone. Libya was another, and it has just retired from the field, suing for peace and giving up its weapons of mass destruction. (Gaddafi went so far as to go on television to urge Syria, Iran and North Korea to do the same.) Iran has also gone softer, agreeing to spot inspections, something it never did before it faced 130,000 American troops about 100 miles from its border.

    These gains are all a direct result of the Iraq war. A spokesman for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told the London Daily Telegraph in September that Gaddafi had telephoned Berlusconi and told him: "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

    The idea that we are not safer because al Qaeda is not yet stopped is absurd. Of course we have terror alerts. We will continue to have them until al Qaeda is extinguished, and you do not eliminate in two years a menace that was granted eight years of unmolested growth and metastasis when Dean's party was in power.

    But look at the region whence al Qaeda came. Not only has the Taliban been overthrown, Afghanistan just this week adopted a new constitution agreed to by a loya jirga (grand council) representing every part of this fractured tribal society. It is an astonishing development in a country with so little experience in representative government and ravaged by more than a quarter-century of civil war. And it came about as a result of American force of arms followed by American diplomacy.

    Look at Pakistan. On Sept. 11, 2001, it was supporting the Taliban, ignoring al Qaeda and assisting other Islamic extremists. Force majeure by the Bush administration turned Pakistan. The Musharraf government is now a crucial ally in the war on terror.

    And now, just this week, another astonishing development: a summit between India and Pakistan leading to negotiations that, the joint communique said, "will" solve all outstanding issues, including the half-century-old fight over Kashmir. Both Pakistani and Indian observers agree that intense behind-the-scenes mediation by the Bush administration was instrumental in bringing about the rapprochement.

    From Libya to India, ice is breaking and the region is changing. In this part of the world, there is no guarantee of success. But if this is not progress -- remarkable, unexpected and hugely significant -- then nothing is.



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1986-2004Jan8.html
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Great article, thanks for posting it!
     
  3. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I agree with Kruthammer. There is no doubt that we are safer, which by no means implies 'safe.' It should be obvious that the days where we can pretend that we are safe, are gone. That in itself means the government must do what is within its powers to do to keep us, 'as safe as possible', along with a careful weighing of civil liberties.
     
  4. wonderwench
    Offline

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    As Benjamin Franklin said:

    "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security ."

    We never were safe to begin with - just relatively safer than most of the rest of the world due to our economic system, national security strength and our system of government.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Never has a quote been taken out of context so often. To think that the people who would put world consensus before US security first use this quote is preposterous.


    Franklin also said this: "All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move."

    The Islamicist extremist are the first. The Euro weenies are the second. The coalition of the willing are the third.
     
  6. wonderwench
    Offline

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Kathianne - excellent post.

    I completely agree.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Thanks wonderwench, love your pic! Hey us conservatives tend to be hit and not respond. I think that is a mistake. Believe me, if it had been a conservative that made the Ghandi gaffe, it would be a front pager for DAYS.
     
  8. wonderwench
    Offline

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Your welcome! And thanks.

    But I must give credit where credit is due. SinisterMotives is my Personal Avatar Master Extraordinaire!
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Gosh I want that bod. 'Going to take my Christmas money to healthclub!'
     
  10. wonderwench
    Offline

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I wish it were as easy as taking money to a health club.

    :D
     

Share This Page