Wisdom From The "West"
(Cross-posted at our new site on TownHall.com
And that would be Diana West in the Washington Times today:
Remember the Coalition of the Willing? Here's a new force to set the world straight: The Coalition of the Willing to Call Hezbollah a Terrorist Group. Without effort, I can think of a trio so inclined (Australia, Israel and the United States). Throw in trusty Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau for good measure, and it's a "multi"-national coalition.
Once -- and it seems bizarre to have to point this out -- it was self-evident that Hezbollah was civilization's foe. Indeed, it was an unremarkable, innate expression of civilization itself to think so. No more. It is a measure of the moral attrition of the West that this "point of view" now becomes openly contested, a matter of nuance, degrees, and complexity, punctuated by clinking water glasses at conference tables the world over.
All of which leaves the so-called war on terror exactly where? Muddled beyond measure. For the war on Hezbollah is, if it is anything, a crucial front of the "terror" war. If the Israelis lose -- and by lose I mean if the Israelis allow the crooked court of world opinion to bar them from crushing Hezbollah and its ability to make war -- we all lose. That is, "we" who wish to triumph over "terror" all lose. And here we go again, bumping up against the clumsy imprecision of politically correct language that fails to define the enemy as adherents of the doctrine of Islamic jihad. Such as Hezbollah, for instance. In addition to destroying Israel, the vicious Iranian proxy also aims at imposing an Iranian-style Shariah state in Lebanon. As just one more contemporary manifestation of jihad doctrine, Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any jihad group except al Qaeda, should easily make the blacklist of enemies in a post-September 11 world.
But no. Most of our traditional "allies" (or whatever they are) quiver at the thought. "Given the sensitive situation, I don't think we will be acting on this now," said Finnish foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, speaking for the 25 member states of the European Union, which this week rebuffed a plea from 213 U.S. congressmen to brand Hezbollah a terrorist group. Russia -- no traditional ally but oddly treated like one -- also balks at designating Hezbollah (or, for that matter, Hamas) an outlaw group. France, meanwhile, goes so far as to call nuke-seeking, Jew-hating, Hezbollah-sponsoring Iran a "respected" country and "stabilizing" force in the region.
But even as our strategic destiny diverges from Europe's over the Middle East -- an epochal rift a long time coming -- there is something else disquieting about the Hezbollah question. And that concerns the terror group's standing in the region. In Lebanon, credible reports attest to anti-Hezbollah sentiment among Southern Lebanon's Christian populations. But key parts of the Lebanese government -- which the United States hopes will take over Hezbollah-controlled areas -- and the national army clearly favor Hezbollah. This should make us wonder whether the United States sending the Lebanese army $10 million in emergency aid benefits peace or benefits Hezbollah.
Then, of course, there's Iraq, a nation of warring Islamic tribes safeguarded only and barely by the continued presence of American forces, not to mention billions of taxpayer dollars. To date, Iraq's prime minister, president, two vice presidents, assorted imams, and much of its newly free media have publicly condemned one party -- Israel. The fractiously sectarian Iraqi parliament has even come together in rare and unanimous solidarity to condemn the Jewish state. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed Congress last month, he declared Iraq to be on "the front line" of the war on terror, and proclaimed Iraqis to be America's "allies in the war on terror." But he also pointedly failed to condemn Hezbollah terrorism -- or, it seems safe to presume, to consider Hezbollah a terrorist group. Like a Mel Gibson bender, this should make us think. Can the United States and Mr. al-Maliki really be talking about the same "terror" war?
Our elites never ask such a question, maybe because it leads to another. Does propping up in Iraq what amounts to a proto-Shariah state that is reflexively anti-Israel if not reflexively pro-Hezbollah constitute victory in the "war on terror"? Call me crazy, but I don't think so. We've already had our victory in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. We won't be able to win again until we recognize that our politically correct but factually mistaken view of the Islamic world is out of focus. When we can't see victory on the other side of the cultural divide, we need to look elsewhere.
We are left with a conundrum. This piece is not the first, nor will it be the last, that addresses some of the problems we face in our war. I chastise myself and others who declare this "global war on terror" as a "world war." Do you know why? Because a decent amount of the world could seriously care less. Like a brave lion-tamer, nations like France, Gemany, Russia, and China--just to name four of our so-called allies--stick their heads into the lion's mouth when they wheel and deal with nations like Saddam's Iraq and Ahmadinejad's Iran. Saddam is indeed gone, and that is a boon for the United States and the region. No longer does the greater Middle-East have to worry about an upstart dictator that was on the verge of being sold out by his two sons to his worst enemy in the region.
That was true. We have evidence and intelligence showing that Uday and Qusay were going to stab daddy dearest int he back, and hand him over to Iran. Unfortunately, the boys from the 101st Airborne and United States Special Operations ended even that slim hope on July 22, 2003.
But our "allies" in Europe and the United Nations seem to have a severe problem with identifying terrorism when it rears its ugly head. The United Nations prefers to look at Hezbollah and Hamas like political organizations. They give them credence in the world community in some vain, politically-correct notion that they can be negotiated with, and that they are trustworthy. Unfortunately for the PC crowd, nothing could be further from the truth.
Thomas and I have railed on about how any sort of negotiation with Iran is futile, and that Iran would ultimately break any sort of treaty that they signed. The same goes for groups like Hezbollah. Yesterday Captain Ed Morrissey took note of a news story where Syria is supposedly putting pressure on Hezbollah to move towards a cease-fire. And while this might sound like a nice idea to the "nuanced" Euro-weenies and the United Nations diplomats--the ones who sip their champagne and Perrier waters while they click their tongues at "simpletons like ourselves--such a deal will never work out. Hezbollah, like their Iranian handlers, will never set aside their differences and settle for peace.
Not while Jews still exist, and live in the Middle East.
Terrorism is terrorism. No one likes war as much as terrorists do, and no one relishes in death as much as they do. If someone were to put an treaty on the table calling for Iran to end it nuclear enrichment, or for Hezbollah to disarm, they would only agree to it and abide by it if the world would let them carry out this ultimate goal of annihilating the Jews, and finishing Hitler's "Final Solution." That is the only way these people will ever accept peace in their time. But if we are not careful the peace we so desperately want in the world may come at the expense of people who do not deserve the judgment that others would so richly relish in doling out.
And they would gladly do it under the auspice of "peace" created by people who cannot and will not identify the fox for what it is when it comes around the henhouse.
Marcie
(Cross-posted at our new site on TownHall.com
And that would be Diana West in the Washington Times today:
Remember the Coalition of the Willing? Here's a new force to set the world straight: The Coalition of the Willing to Call Hezbollah a Terrorist Group. Without effort, I can think of a trio so inclined (Australia, Israel and the United States). Throw in trusty Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau for good measure, and it's a "multi"-national coalition.
Once -- and it seems bizarre to have to point this out -- it was self-evident that Hezbollah was civilization's foe. Indeed, it was an unremarkable, innate expression of civilization itself to think so. No more. It is a measure of the moral attrition of the West that this "point of view" now becomes openly contested, a matter of nuance, degrees, and complexity, punctuated by clinking water glasses at conference tables the world over.
All of which leaves the so-called war on terror exactly where? Muddled beyond measure. For the war on Hezbollah is, if it is anything, a crucial front of the "terror" war. If the Israelis lose -- and by lose I mean if the Israelis allow the crooked court of world opinion to bar them from crushing Hezbollah and its ability to make war -- we all lose. That is, "we" who wish to triumph over "terror" all lose. And here we go again, bumping up against the clumsy imprecision of politically correct language that fails to define the enemy as adherents of the doctrine of Islamic jihad. Such as Hezbollah, for instance. In addition to destroying Israel, the vicious Iranian proxy also aims at imposing an Iranian-style Shariah state in Lebanon. As just one more contemporary manifestation of jihad doctrine, Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any jihad group except al Qaeda, should easily make the blacklist of enemies in a post-September 11 world.
But no. Most of our traditional "allies" (or whatever they are) quiver at the thought. "Given the sensitive situation, I don't think we will be acting on this now," said Finnish foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, speaking for the 25 member states of the European Union, which this week rebuffed a plea from 213 U.S. congressmen to brand Hezbollah a terrorist group. Russia -- no traditional ally but oddly treated like one -- also balks at designating Hezbollah (or, for that matter, Hamas) an outlaw group. France, meanwhile, goes so far as to call nuke-seeking, Jew-hating, Hezbollah-sponsoring Iran a "respected" country and "stabilizing" force in the region.
But even as our strategic destiny diverges from Europe's over the Middle East -- an epochal rift a long time coming -- there is something else disquieting about the Hezbollah question. And that concerns the terror group's standing in the region. In Lebanon, credible reports attest to anti-Hezbollah sentiment among Southern Lebanon's Christian populations. But key parts of the Lebanese government -- which the United States hopes will take over Hezbollah-controlled areas -- and the national army clearly favor Hezbollah. This should make us wonder whether the United States sending the Lebanese army $10 million in emergency aid benefits peace or benefits Hezbollah.
Then, of course, there's Iraq, a nation of warring Islamic tribes safeguarded only and barely by the continued presence of American forces, not to mention billions of taxpayer dollars. To date, Iraq's prime minister, president, two vice presidents, assorted imams, and much of its newly free media have publicly condemned one party -- Israel. The fractiously sectarian Iraqi parliament has even come together in rare and unanimous solidarity to condemn the Jewish state. When Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed Congress last month, he declared Iraq to be on "the front line" of the war on terror, and proclaimed Iraqis to be America's "allies in the war on terror." But he also pointedly failed to condemn Hezbollah terrorism -- or, it seems safe to presume, to consider Hezbollah a terrorist group. Like a Mel Gibson bender, this should make us think. Can the United States and Mr. al-Maliki really be talking about the same "terror" war?
Our elites never ask such a question, maybe because it leads to another. Does propping up in Iraq what amounts to a proto-Shariah state that is reflexively anti-Israel if not reflexively pro-Hezbollah constitute victory in the "war on terror"? Call me crazy, but I don't think so. We've already had our victory in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. We won't be able to win again until we recognize that our politically correct but factually mistaken view of the Islamic world is out of focus. When we can't see victory on the other side of the cultural divide, we need to look elsewhere.
We are left with a conundrum. This piece is not the first, nor will it be the last, that addresses some of the problems we face in our war. I chastise myself and others who declare this "global war on terror" as a "world war." Do you know why? Because a decent amount of the world could seriously care less. Like a brave lion-tamer, nations like France, Gemany, Russia, and China--just to name four of our so-called allies--stick their heads into the lion's mouth when they wheel and deal with nations like Saddam's Iraq and Ahmadinejad's Iran. Saddam is indeed gone, and that is a boon for the United States and the region. No longer does the greater Middle-East have to worry about an upstart dictator that was on the verge of being sold out by his two sons to his worst enemy in the region.
That was true. We have evidence and intelligence showing that Uday and Qusay were going to stab daddy dearest int he back, and hand him over to Iran. Unfortunately, the boys from the 101st Airborne and United States Special Operations ended even that slim hope on July 22, 2003.
But our "allies" in Europe and the United Nations seem to have a severe problem with identifying terrorism when it rears its ugly head. The United Nations prefers to look at Hezbollah and Hamas like political organizations. They give them credence in the world community in some vain, politically-correct notion that they can be negotiated with, and that they are trustworthy. Unfortunately for the PC crowd, nothing could be further from the truth.
Thomas and I have railed on about how any sort of negotiation with Iran is futile, and that Iran would ultimately break any sort of treaty that they signed. The same goes for groups like Hezbollah. Yesterday Captain Ed Morrissey took note of a news story where Syria is supposedly putting pressure on Hezbollah to move towards a cease-fire. And while this might sound like a nice idea to the "nuanced" Euro-weenies and the United Nations diplomats--the ones who sip their champagne and Perrier waters while they click their tongues at "simpletons like ourselves--such a deal will never work out. Hezbollah, like their Iranian handlers, will never set aside their differences and settle for peace.
Not while Jews still exist, and live in the Middle East.
Terrorism is terrorism. No one likes war as much as terrorists do, and no one relishes in death as much as they do. If someone were to put an treaty on the table calling for Iran to end it nuclear enrichment, or for Hezbollah to disarm, they would only agree to it and abide by it if the world would let them carry out this ultimate goal of annihilating the Jews, and finishing Hitler's "Final Solution." That is the only way these people will ever accept peace in their time. But if we are not careful the peace we so desperately want in the world may come at the expense of people who do not deserve the judgment that others would so richly relish in doling out.
And they would gladly do it under the auspice of "peace" created by people who cannot and will not identify the fox for what it is when it comes around the henhouse.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home