Army Strong

Submitted by Zentrist (United States), Oct 22, 2008 at 20:40

From where I sit, which is in a chair that's making my butt sore, appeasement as such should be applied as one tool in the tool box, so to speak. My opinion is that we should start now, not later--beefing up our military. We need to be ready for anything that comes down the pike. Especially the unexpected, the surprise attack--as happened, inexplicably, on 9/11. Even better--and this is why I believe to some extent in appeasement so defined--we need to address at least some of the grievances of UBL. With our coming energy independence, we should be able, for example, to leave some of those places where, according to the Muslims and Islam, we have no business "fighting" in the first place. As a non-expert, in the wake of 9/11, this is partly where I stand. Partly.

I also think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can "appease" while tripling our military might. We thus are ready to put the ball in their court and see what happens. And then if and when the time comes, respond appropriately as necessary with our newly beefed up strength and that of our allies. The doctrine that Ahmadinejad is like Hitler, or even that Hitler is like Hitler--read Pat Buchanan's most recent book--can be open to question. That's how skeptical folks, including me, can be. Nonetheless, I appreciate Dr. Pipe's article for its history and that history's current relevance.

Having said this, I believe we should put the ball in our enemies' court so that the world will have every opportunity to see for themselves just what the enemy looks like. In fact, Bush may be doing this now. It may well have been Bush's idea, not the Saudi's, to create the 2002 Saudi Initiative. (One is here cognizant of the fact that Bush and his father have been cozy, too cozy in my view, with the Saudis.) We were reminded today that the Saudi King put on the table a peace initiative. A peace which, if it came about, would affect the entire region, obviously. Reportedly, twenty-two Arab states have agreed to this Peace Initiative. We cannot allow the extremists continually to undermine these efforts. We have to squash them. (And let's also recall that the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Rabin is approaching; on Election Day, it so happens.)

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I know I want peace. And I know that peace ain't gonna happen unless all parties concerned are willing and able to make excruciatingly painful compromises. The alternative is perhaps an all out nuclear war that would offer up the entire world as the sacrificial lamb.

So we need to do both things at once: triple or quadruple our military (fat chance); and continue working towards another, more complete this time--Camp David. The first Camp David had some fatal loose ends. Some settlements, from where I sit, will need to be revisited to see just how appropriate they are in this new direction we (some of us) see coming. At any rate, I like Dennis Ross--and I fervently hope Obama wins, especially after seeing him speak so sensibly today with people like Sam Nunn sitting behind him. Obama floats like a butterfly, but he might just sting like a bee if necessary. His middle name is not Mohammed Ali, but it is close. If my theory is correct, Obama will not, if elected ( still a big if) be an appeaser. Rather, he will be tough-minded, as Dennis Ross is tough-minded. But God only knows.

p.s. An interesting article in the recent "First Things": "Islam's Way to Freedom," by Thomas F. Farr.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".