The enemy of my enemy...

Back a lot more quickly than anticipated, but I felt inspired at last.

In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks I advocated carpet-bombing every place that danced in celebration of them. That would have sent a VERY clear message and made zero difference to the terrorists’ antipathy toward us. As well, they would have to high-tail it for whatever hole in the ground they could find because if the locals know that they will suffer severely to pin-prick the infidel with miniscule attacks, support will rapidly dry up.

My opinions have if anything only hardened since then, and the Americans particularly have begun to reap the harvest of being too soft on their enemies. Diane West’s op ed piece here (hat tip: LGF) says everything I’m thinking better than I could do so myself.

Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the books, and it also applies to people you have no inclination to conquer. Hardly anyone cares that millions of people have died in Africa in the last few years (Sudan and the DRC specifically), and none of them have been trying to destroy our civilization. Why then should we cringe from letting the Muslims beat up on each other if it keeps al Queda and Iran away from us?

We are losing our painfully acquired western traditions to the demographic impingement of people with no interest in them. We (the West) can’t be militarily defeated, even (especially) by terrorism, but we can collapse under our own apathy, and this looks like it’s happening.

Here’s a quote to put the Middle East in perspective:

"First of all, I oppose any external intervention in Arab affairs. If the Arabs are so inept that they cannot be democratic by themselves, they can never be democratic through the intervention of others.
"If we want to be democratic, we must be so by ourselves. But the preconditions for democracy do not exist in Arab society, and cannot exist unless religion is reexamined in a new and accurate way, and unless religion becomes a personal and spiritual experience, which must be respected."

This comes from an Arab, so it’s a bit of self-awareness that so many factions in the Arab (and Muslim) world try so hard to suppress. This “tradition” of intolerance of different opinions is something that the Jihadists would export to the world. The immediacy of this threat, especially to this continent, is debatable, but anything that focuses the efforts of those groups away from “us” is a good thing.

Despite the general bloodthirstiness suggested by a lot of my opinions, there will be a majority in any of these countries that don’t deserve what will happen to them and I wish that was preventable. However, there is no magic that will separate all those who could live with our society from all those who wish to destroy it, so it’s up to whatever afterlives there may be to sort them out.

The West can’t allow itself to be handcuffed by soft-hearted concerns when its’ very existence is at stake. We did what needed to be done to win WW2, but history has shown since then that every time we “pull our punches” the job doesn’t get finished. Korea, Israel/Palestine, Vietnam and Somalia are all examples of things that either went against what “we” were hoping to accomplish and/or are still in a state of flux pending some more permanent solution.

Sometimes doing nothing is exactly the right decision, provided it is a deliberate, considered choice and not the result of some mental paralysis. Iraq at least looks like it’ll provide its’ own exit strategy for the US if they want to take it.