Re(2): 'NYT Surprised by 2nd Annual Jump In Revenues since Tax Cuts...', Me
Re(3): 'The Aftermath: Hezbollah's Looming Loss', StrategyPage, Austin Bay
Re(4): 'Is Britain tired of its multiculturalist mantra?', The Daily Star, Muhammad Zamir
Re(5): 'New violence erupts near Chechnya', al-Reuters
As my post title illustrates I don't see things exactly as Ferguson sees them, but his long view is intriguing - and correct.
At the edge, how do we know when we win 'The Great War for Democracy'?
And, will the West accept losing this 'The Great War for Democracy'?
We know we are winning the 'Great War for Democracy' when we can use that term unabashedly. When will that occur?
When we no longer run deficits – even though we are still actively dealing with global terrorism. When the proxies of global terrorism are unmasked for what they are – weak pawns of weak horses. When global terrorism involves all major civilizations in the conflict.
All these markers are coming to bare.
- Our (United States) annual deficit is receding rapidly. It will zero out within two years – my guess is next year. That is not a positive datapoint for Islamic Terror. bin Laden attempted to destroy our economy. He failed miserably.
- Hezbollah and Hamas are facing their Katrina test this year - and for years to come. Are the sponsors of terror going to be able to martial the men and material and knowledge and organizational skill to rebuild their proxy polities after wars they started and lost? Do they have the resources to fight democracy at home, deal with massive military might on their borders, steam along on complex and expensive Manhattan Projects, and rebuild regions decimated by wars they initiated? I think not. It shall be demonstrated that they can fight and lose, but not that they can govern and prosper.
- While China and Russia are playing great power games, they are playing them at the edge. Another Beslan changes things for Russia. In fact, in 2006 just how are the Chechen Islamic terrorist doing in their struggle against Russia. A major Islamic terrorist attack in China opens another front. It will happen. Sooner rather than later. Then Militant Islam will have enemies on all sides.
Soon, within President Bush’s tenure, we will be able to call this conflict ‘The Great War for Democracy’. Maybe this year.
We will know we have won when we can repeatedly elect representatives on an 'It's the economy stupid' platform. Not yet, not for quite a while. Good people like Mark Warner cannot run on this platform, and they will face an uphill battle in dealing with the still undefeated extremes in their Party.
On accepting a loss in the ‘Great War for Democracy’ I can say without reservation that the long range answer will be a resounding NO.
- There may be blips in the short term – but the enemy will reinforce our will to fight. Take for example a takeover of Congress by silly isolationists and conversationalist. It may be peaches and cream for a short time, but what happens when it is viciously demonstrated that there is nobody to talk to. Our civilization, our culture, our nation can deal with millions of casualties – but we will be enraged by the murder of thousands. Can militant Islam fight us toe to toe, can they control their decentralized goon squad organizations enough to hold a winning strategy against the West? Again, I think not.
- I would not want to be on the side of deep discussion with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Osama bin Laden. When those turds strike Paris or attempt to launch a missile at, or over, Japan or detonate some huge bomb in Toronto or machine gun a gay parade in San Francisco it will show the voters just how ineffective group therapy sessions are when dealing with ideological murderers. In fact, my biggest concern revolves around the destruction of the Democratic Party as an entity worth listening to – and voting for. A One-Party republic is not a stable democracy.
- On Niall's belief that we will win this conflict outside military means I accept and deny his conjecture. How absolutely presumptuous of me. I accept that victory will be measured by non-military datapoints. However, the application of military might enhances and illustrates and aggravates those datapoints. Without active military capability on the borders of Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia (and Pakistan) we would have to wait much longer for natural degradation to occur. Our military forces these sponsors of terror to expend resources they could have used elsewhere. Fighting this conflict without the use of military force is like playing a basketball game on your defensive court. You could (and in this case would) with, but the game will be close and consume many extra overtime periods to break the tie – do we have the time against a suicidal, aggressive, ideological foe?