Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Let's be friends!

Jeff Jacoby finds parallels between Jimmy Carter's detente with the Soviets that led to the invasion of Afghanistan and Obama's overtures to the Muslim world:

Radical Islam's hatred of the United States is not a recent phenomenon, it has nothing to do with "respect," and it isn't going to be extinguished by sweet words - not even those of so sweet a speaker as our new president. Sooner or later, Obama must confront an implacable reality: The global jihad, like the Cold War, will end only when our enemies lose their will to fight - or when we do. Let us hope he's a quicker study than Jimmy Carter.
Osama Bin Laden said: "When the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse." The President can, of course, forge his own path on foreign policy but it would be better if he remembered that there are some factions who will perceive his overtures as weakness.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yeah, because that whole "speak rashly and have your grandchildren buy you a big stick" policy of 2001-08 has really done the trick.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, because that whole "speak rashly and have your grandchildren buy you a big stick" policy of 2001-08 has really done the trick."

Yeah. Whatta failure that was. I mean -- just look at all the terroist attacks on the United States after 9-11.

When you count them you can see that there were . . . ah . . . none.

Well, move along. Nothing to see. That "speak rashly" policy was a real failure. Honest. It was. No kiddin'. Fail. (If you repeat a lie often enough . . . )

Anonymous said...

Ah, what would conservatives do without the phrase "except for 9/11"? That's quite a mulligan you're always asking for.

And what of the soil OUTSIDE America's? You know, the kind of soil from which 9/11 was plotted and funded?

Iran and North Korea amping up their nuclear programs in response to Bush rhetoric, China buying up our wartime deficit economy, all-time oil profits for the Middle East shieks who fund terrorism, Pakistan teetering... something tells me that Mark L isn't a "big picture" guy.

But there's no reason for you to stop fixing the facts around the policy. Just keep chanting it like a mantra for the next 40 years: He Kept Us Safe™

Anonymous said...

That's what makes liberal so cute. For six years they continuously undercut, kneecap, and clothesline "W"'s efforts to reduce risk in the world -- and then they get to blame "W" because he fails to have finish the golf course with a score of 18. Anything less than a hole-in-one, every time is a miserable failure.

Anonymous said...

Jacoby is conflating big-power foreign policy and dealing with the asymmetric tactics of terrorists. He also falls into the trap that the terrorists (try to) set.

He writes in a paragraph that suggests that the US has made it a national priority to protect ungrateful Muslims: "Not even the Islamist atrocities of 9/11 provoked American leaders to treat Islam with disdain." This should not be a surprise, given that the USA is a civilized and rational nation. To do otherwise would have made us patsies in the terrorist game.

"Muslim" and " Muslim Terrorist" are not synonyms. Moderate Jews who are willing to compromise on issues to secure peace have little to do with the ultra-orthodox extremists who set up settlements on the West Bank in violation of Israeli law or who assassinate Israeli politicians who dare to negotiate with Arabs; Christian extremists who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors have nothing meaningful in common with the vast majority of Sunday churchgoers who also loathe abortion. Al Qaeda would love nothing more than to unite 300 million Americans against a billion Muslims via an attack carried out by 19 maniacs. They salivate at the notion of motivating a billion people to actually take up arms to re-establish the caliphate rather than going about the mundane daily business of having a job, raising a family, etc. They have been failures at doing this so far.

The Russians invaded Georgia despite international condemnation and our having a Texas ass-kicker in the White House. They did it for the same reasons they invaded Afghanistan: because it served their purposes and because they could. Tough talk or soft talk was not the deciding factor in either case.

Jacoby is right in saying that the fight will not end until they give up. It is doubtful "they" ever will. We will have terrorism as long as any one of the billions of people on this planet are willing to commit acts of murder and mayhem in the name of their religion or their pet peeve. No military deployment will solve that problem. Cooperative international intelligence and law enforcement work has and will do far more to protect the innocent from these sociopaths.

Let Obama say the nice words to Muslims. What matters is what he does.

Anonymous said...

Mark, we liberals are also cute as hell when we think that "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" is something more than an old catchphrase, and that "American values" aren't just a stump speech sop for the yahoos.

But as long as you're spinning double standards, here's another. Painting Bush as the driving engine of success when things are well, but the tragic victim of liberal perfidy when he fails.

And the golf metaphor? Unfortunate choice.

Anonymous said...

"And the golf metaphor? Unfortunate choice."

The "9/11 mulligan" post must've stuck in his craw.

As for Bush and Iraq, now THAT was a bad lie.