An Argument For Destabilization
Wizbang's Mr. Tea:
Read the whole thing. I've made similar points about stability in the middle east, but never quite as succinctly as above.
The people who make the argument that is rejected above are who I call the "peace at any cost" crowd. They believe that if we keep our military here at home, quit ruffling the feathers of dictators and tyrants around the globe and stop intimidating the rest of the world by maintaining the finest, best-equipped, most powerful military on earth there would be no more war.
These people are, quite frankly, out of their gourds. The stability of oppressive regimes is not something we should be worried about.
The only thing that keeps Americans safe from attack by our enemies is the fact that our enemies fear our retribution. In fact, as I pointed out in a recent column for a local publication here in North Dakota, nearly every instance where our country's interests were attacked either abroad or domestically can be traced back to another instance where our country displayed weakness to our enemies.
Diplomacy is all well and good and should certainly be option #1 in our foreign policy, but some monsters in this world (and the majority of the people we are hostile with in the middle east are, make no doubt about it, monsters) will only understand force. The only thing that will deter them from attacking us is either a) us attacking them first or b) their consideration of what our retribution will be after their attack.
I'm reminded of something Condoleezza Rice said over a year ago:
That statement should be the cornerstone, the bedrock foundation, of America's foreign policy. No quarter for tyrants or terrorists. If that means making waves, so be it. In the long run both our interests, and the interests of the world, will be better served.
One of the sillier accusations against President Bush's policies and actions regarding the Middle East has been that they have been "destabilizing" matters.
To which I respond with a hearty "well, duh."
"Stability" is the watchword of many people. They don't want matters upset. They think the situation may be bad, but it could be worse, and they think that the status quo is at least tolerable.
I reject that argument.
Let's look at what is considered the "stable" situation these people want to preserve:
The entire Muslim/Arab world ruled by dictators of various sorts -- theocrats, autocrats, and out-and-out tyrants.
A steady, constant level of terrorist attacks and slaughter of civilians in Israel and around the world.
The world's oil supply (the lifeblood of modern civilization) vulnerable to threats and disruptions.
Large portions of the revenues from said oil supply going to fund these terrorist attacks, while an even larger portion props up said dictators.
Yeah, President Bush has certainly destabilized that situation. I'd like to think (for the sake of my nation and the world) that he has a grand scheme going on, a vision of how he wants it to be coupled with a workable plan to reach it, but even if he simply decided to toss the whole thing into a blender and hit puree', the odds are halfway decent that the end product will be better.
Read the whole thing. I've made similar points about stability in the middle east, but never quite as succinctly as above.
The people who make the argument that is rejected above are who I call the "peace at any cost" crowd. They believe that if we keep our military here at home, quit ruffling the feathers of dictators and tyrants around the globe and stop intimidating the rest of the world by maintaining the finest, best-equipped, most powerful military on earth there would be no more war.
These people are, quite frankly, out of their gourds. The stability of oppressive regimes is not something we should be worried about.
The only thing that keeps Americans safe from attack by our enemies is the fact that our enemies fear our retribution. In fact, as I pointed out in a recent column for a local publication here in North Dakota, nearly every instance where our country's interests were attacked either abroad or domestically can be traced back to another instance where our country displayed weakness to our enemies.
Diplomacy is all well and good and should certainly be option #1 in our foreign policy, but some monsters in this world (and the majority of the people we are hostile with in the middle east are, make no doubt about it, monsters) will only understand force. The only thing that will deter them from attacking us is either a) us attacking them first or b) their consideration of what our retribution will be after their attack.
I'm reminded of something Condoleezza Rice said over a year ago:
...for 60 years, my county, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region [the middle east] . . . and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.
That statement should be the cornerstone, the bedrock foundation, of America's foreign policy. No quarter for tyrants or terrorists. If that means making waves, so be it. In the long run both our interests, and the interests of the world, will be better served.
