Washington Times editor Tony Blankley tries a different tack toward the liberals who don't talk to him anymore: he digs out his OED and recasts the term "appeasement" as "in and of itself" "neither inherently unwise or immoral," thus (he hopes) prompting a serious discussion of the supposed desire of some three-fifths of Americans for "appeasement" of "radical Islam." I thought the enemy was al-Qaeda, but never mind that, and never mind that Mr. Blankley probably started with the challenge "prove liberals are wrong to be offended by the label 'appeaser' in a brand new way." I call smartypants.
We'll begin with Mr. Blankley's essential point, that such "appeasements" as changing our foreign policy or being more politically correct won't effectively neutralize radical Islamists, because they are "irreconcilable and unlimited in their goals," and because of this, "(a) maximum effort to extirpate the malignancy is the only and best defense for our way of life." I've always agreed that al-Qaeda should be "extirpated, but intentions aren't actions, and "unlimited goals" does not prove "unlimited power" and certainly doesn't justify "maximum efforts" like unlimited war. Al-Qaeda, as I've said before, doesn't have a state to back them up like Hitler or Stalin did. A state wold give al-Qaeda access to (among other means to power) laws, arms, diplomats, and the ability to browbeat dissenters, which always exist, even within al-Qaeda. And does having the aim of world domination automatically confer the tactical ability to ensure the achievement of world domination? How close will al-Qaeda be to "world domination" after the next terrorist attack, especially now that most of the world is looking for them? Will "infiltration" of American and European societies by radical Muslims work as well as Mr. Blankley seems to think, or will too many of them get addicted to PlayStation and HBO and text messaging and football like everyone else?
Worse than that, of course, is that Tony Blankley (like so, so many other Bush Mobbers) presents false opposites: he thinks "appeasement," as he's defined it, and neutralizing terrorists are completely incompatible concepts.
But why on earth can't you do both?
If someone I may have wronged, in however indirect a way, comes at me with a gun, I'm not going to sit them down to tea; I'm going to put a slug in their posterior regions. But once I've neutralized the threat, the only thing preventing me from correcting what I did wrong is pride. And nothing prevents Tha Bush Mobb from correcting any of the errors we've made in the last half-century or so of dealing with the Middle East -- you know, errors like treating the area like a big chessboard, and treating its citizens like cattle who happen to be sitting on massive amounts of oil.
Aggressively targeting al-Qaeda cells all over the world is not incompatible with forging a solution to the Israel/Palestine mess that guarantees both a Palestinian state and Israel's survival, but Tha Bush Mobb has done nothing toward that end. Aggressively targeting al-Qaeda is not incompatible with researching and developing alternative energy sources, but Tha Bush Mobb has paid only lip service to that end even as gas prices have doubled. Aggressively targeting al-Qaeda is not incompatible with reining in corporations as they look for new resources to steal and new peoples to enslave, but...well, you see where that's going under Mr. Bush. All of the programs I've suggested would shrink the potential pool of new terrorists, whether slaves to "the free market" or "bold thinking" like it or not. You'll still have terrorists, because you'll still have nuts. But wouldn't they be easier to contain if there were fewer of them?
There are many other points with which to quarrel with Mr. Blankley (no it's not "surveillance of Muslims" I oppose but "warrantless surveillance" so stop yer damn lying), but paragraph 19 is the most telling. "This is an issue of threat assessment," Mr. Blankley says. "The appeasers don't see the threat as so great. Thus they think we are overreacting and even adding to the problem." I guess he says "even" to suggest how outlandish it is that Tha Bush Mobb is "adding to the problem." Of course Mr. Blankley doesn't defend himself against the accusation, because if he did, he'd have to utter a word that appears nowhere in his article. And that word is?
Iraq.
Comments