08 September 2007

Thoughts on What Comes From the Cake-Hole of the Enemy

My thoughts on bin Laden’s little message for us. As always, a disclaimer: I’m not an expert, I’ve not watched any video of this, and I am open to reasoned debate on these points.

First, bin Laden takes pride in the fact that we, as Americans, refer to what happened on 9/11 when we discuss our current situation, when we discuss the world we live in, as if he has branded America in some indelible way with his mark. He chooses to believe that he has defined America through this single attack. What he does not understand – or at least does not admit – is that the 9/11 attack became a turning point for many Americans, not a mark of shame.

Bin Laden’s ramble on the path of the war in Iraq is only important in that it solidifies the fact that Iraq is a central battlefield in the war against Islamofascism. His comments are simply his point of view from the other side of the battlefield. They may be important to someone, but not to me.

Next comes some ramble about incinerating people of other faiths (meaning other than “mine”) and how Christians perpetrated the Holocaust, the Inquisition and Nagasaki/Hiroshima. My first thought on this ramble is, “Thanks for the brief history ‘lesson.’ Your point is not made. Please don’t try again.” Anyone who thinks that terrorism fueled by radical Islam can be excused because of past atrocities by any group is practicing wildly flawed thinking. Under that banner, any and all behavior is excusable. It is simply an argument that must be rejected out of hand.

Two random points: 1) Bin Laden buys into conspiracy theories concerning the assassination of JFK. Birds of a delusional feather flock to ideas together. 2) If bin Laden thinks that we do not now value the lives of those outside of the US, what would he think if we really took the gloves off militarily, completely loosened the rules of engagement?

Noam Chomsky is the voice of rational thought in America? Can the far-left wing in American be so close to the ideology of Islamofacism? I doubt it. It is just that the message, the core beliefs of those like Chomsky play into the hand of bin Laden. Accommodate, celebrate and tolerate the viewpoint of the enemy and then the enemy will be kind to us. Never mind that this war was started by the enemy. The left plays to the tune, “America, Mea Maxima Culpa of All Time.” Thus Islamofacists support their point of view so that the West might be torn from within by its own.

And that’s why bin Laden is so sad that the current Democratic majority has failed him in bringing an end to the war in Iraq. That was supposed to be their job. The left supported it, and bin Laden hoped for it as well. But what the enemy did not think through, though they claim to understand it, is the inherent need (or greed) for power that permeates many US politicians these days. When Democrats realized that they would be held accountable for what happens after a “cut and run,” they changed their tune somewhat. They grumble and complain and stomp their feet, but they refuse to withdraw funding for the troops – the surest way to end the war. In that way, they failed both the hardcore left in America and bin Laden.

The central point, I think (and thanks to my wife for point this out), of bin Laden’s ramble comes in his refutation of democracy as a form of government. He claims that democracy has failed and that we, as Americans, must reject it so that we may have peace. But our rejection of democracy would really mean a capitulation to Islamofacism. That seems obvious.

What else seems obvious is that bin Laden appears to be speaking from a position of relative weakness. General Petreaus will report in just a few days and it appears that, at least militarily, there is real progress in Iraq. There seems to be a decision, at least at the local level, that fighting foreign terrorists is more important, more of a way forward, than fighting America. That’s a huge problem for bin Laden. And what’s more, if local leaders decide to work together, through compromise and understanding, then perhaps, over time, that kind of political climate can raise to the top levels of the Iraqi government.

And in my opinion, it seems more appropriate, rational and stable that the bottom-up approach be given time. The top-down approach that many in the media and in politics demand would smell more of dictatorial government than democracy. The bottom-up evolution of political cooperation and institutions seems to me to have a greater chance at being stable and effective if for no other reason than that it will have, over time, become the product of a greater portion of the population, not a power structure of a few highly placed politicians.

And so, in conclusion, I feel that bin Laden speaks from a position of weakness. I also think that, troublingly, he echoes the sentiments of the left. By sharing the left’s talking points, bin Laden hopes to boost the idea that the left has the proper view of the world and America’s (wicked) role in it. But I submit that if one among us seems to have his words used by the enemy, his exact sentiments used against us, should we trust that one among us? I think not.

No comments: