The Post report tries to cover for the inane "Iraq is at fault" caucus by noting that:
"Still, the profile of the suspects suggested by investigators fit long-standing warnings by security experts that the greatest potential threat to Britain could come from second-generation Muslims, born here but alienated from British society and perhaps from their own families, and inflamed by Britain's participation in the Iraq war."
There is no evidence offered for this astonishing assertion that the Iraq war has anything to do with the massacre. Zero! And none is needed for the true-believers in the MSM. Is this "reporting?" Or cheerleading for an alternative reality where writers feel free to ascribe to murderers their motives?
We cannot assume that we know why the terrorists are attacking. Assuming that the war in Iraq is a cause when we have no facts to back it up will lead us off the trail of the truth as much as assuming that diplomacy won't work. If we are really going to solve this problem then we have to keep an open mind and wait for facts to back up our reasoning. Lucky for us, sometimes the terrorists come right out and say what their goals are (again from Hugh Hewitt):
From a senior Hamas leader on the possibility of co-existence with Israel:
"It can be a temporary solution, for a maximum of 5 to 10 years. But in the end Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the long term Israel will disappear from the face of the earth."
Well, unless removing Israel from the face of the earth is a valid diplomatic action, I think its safe to say that we're going to need something other than diplomacy where Hamas is involved. There may be other non-violent means, like social pressure from the Palestinian leadership or other incentives to make recruitment impossible for them, but we're not going to be able to appease them by meeting their demands. I still don't think that appeasement is an option for any of the ME terrorists, but I guess until they say otherwise or we try and fail we don't know for sure. I do know that ending the wars we are in now with anything less than total victory will be a disaster. However, I don't know that the only road to total victory excludes some diplomatic action.
5 comments:
Wow, good point about the London bombings. I’ll admit that when I read the Post article this morning, it didn’t strike me as a problematic claim, but I think Hugh is right: we ought not jump to conclusions about grievances, motives, or goals.
I also agree with your assessment of the possibility of diplomacy with Hamas. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of (if not the only) conflicts that I become somewhat Hawkish when discussing. Hamas has to go for anything to happen - when statements like the one you posted are made by their leaders, I am only more confident in that.
I agree with your assessment of the lay of the land, standingout--it wouldn't occur to me necessarily to assign specific grievances to the Al-Qaeda cell that perpetrated the London attack yet.
Two things:
One, isn't there a line between "appeasement" and, as j. morgan has put it, "manipulation?" Appeasement is letting Hitler annex Czechoslovakia and Austria. Not invading Iraq is not appeasement.
Two, I wish we were fighting a GWOT--I'm just skeptical that we are. Perhaps I don't give hard-working US intelligence agencies enough credit; I just think that we should have used our troops, money, energy and time since 9/11 completely to dismantle Al-Qaeda instead of going to Iraq. I'm not looking to argue about the merits of the Iraq war here--I'd like to keep to the subject of the post. But that is my position.
You also wrote:
"I do know that ending the wars we are in now with anything less than total victory will be a disaster. However, I don't know that the only road to total victory excludes some diplomatic action."
Not to pick pickable nits, but don't you think we're past the point of total victory even being possible in Iraq? I'd settle for stability at this point. Or maybe that's what you mean, in which case I agree.
...that is, I agree that it's crucial that we stay the course in Iraq. I disagree with Ted Kennedy et al that we need a timetable for troop withdrawal; I agree with Ted Kennedy et al that the administration needs to be more frank with us.
I think it's hard to say "we don't know why the extremists are attacking" or even "we shouldn't assume we know why their attacking." As you've pointed out, we DO know why their attacking. I think it's better to just say, "stop making excuses for terrorists."
That being said, Bush's explinations, that these are people "born and fed on hatred", also don't do the situation justice.
Post a Comment