Saturday, April 26, 2008

Perhaps the Democrats Should Take Power

Before you run to the comment section of this blog and fire off a message saying I’m a sandwich short of a full picnic, please read on first. Chalk this post up to frustration.

I believe that democrats should regain power for two reasons.

  1. The Republicans are fighting this war ineffectively
  2. The Democrats don’t want to fight it at all.

Let’s take number one first.

Many of you who frequent the starboard side of the blogosphere as it tracks the growing Islamic threat, know that the current Administration can not or will not identify the correct enemy and dances around the issue when they get close. If you can’t identify the enemy you can’t fight it properly. You can’t defeat it. You can’t win the war.

The enemy is an ideology that is advanced both by violent (terrorism) and non-violent (political, economic, demographic – Intimidation, Infiltration, Disinformation) means. Neither the politicians nor the military understand the full extent of this multi-part strategy or how to oppose it if it did. Here’s an example of the misunderstanding even if it is from the opposition’s side of the argument.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm


Christine said...

In this scenario, would the Democrats be able to look beyond their "Bushitler" clouded glasses and see the enemy for what they are? Or, would they continue to be apologist's for "what Bush has caused"?

Yes, this could be the difficult, bloody road to reality. But, we are no longer the Pearl Harbor America.

Whether Bush has shown us the complete picture of this enemy or not, he did bring it out into the open.

What happened on 9/11 only opened the eyes of those people who were already somewhat enlightened. Most people saw OBL as the "criminal" and still cry for us to get him. As if "getting him" will solve the "crime". Others, see us attacking "Islam" as a religion and will never understand what Islam stands for. No matter who or how well it is explained.

There are far too many people in this country (world) who will never "get it", no matter what happens. Their minds on stuck on this reality as all people being good and we just need to talk to them.

Jihad to them, is just another struggle of fellow human beings, trying to be heard.

Pastorius said...

I am on record saying I want Obama to win.

I am also on record as having said, for years now, that the sooner the war gets started the less people will die.

I don't just say that. I really believe it.

Anonymous said...

P: why do you desire an Obama presidency?

Pastorius said...

The sooner the war gets started, the less people will die. McCain will only tread water, which will allow quiet Jihad to continue. Obama will embolden our enemy.

I'm certainly now a strong supporter of Obama. Whether Obama or McCain are elected, I believe bad things will happen.

I have been stunned by what a bad President George Bush has been. I thought the man understood the problems we faced. It doesn't seem like he has. And now, the Christians have all been chased out of Iraq.

We've made the world a worse place.

Do you think my assessment is wrong?

It certainly is cynical.

Pastorius said...

Like WC says towards the end of his essay (you have to click over to Gathering Storm) "it will hasten the start of the REAL war."

Pastorius said...

I must also admit some Schadenfreude in the Dems getting what they asked for.

And, for the Republicans suffering as they ought to for having betrayed us.

Christine said...

Call me cynical too Pastorius. But not in the same way as you. If I felt it would do any good and people's eyes would open up, then I would agree.

But, as I said above, I seriously doubt it will work. I don't see that side turning against this enemy in the matter it needs to be done.

Pastorius said...

One good, practical thing that would come out of a Democrat Presidency is that the Democrats would be forced to actually have to deal with reality, because they be in power.

Pastorius said...

And, maybe Obama will actually bomb Pakistan like he said.


Mother Effingby said...

I think I am completely with you on this one, though I won't actively support Obama. Definitely not Hillary, though. Agree with you that what will come out of a Democratic presidency is having to face reality. Having said that, I think with the press rooted in unreality and a good number of the people, reality might be too bitter a pill a swallow, and the blame will have to be found on some scapegoat's back. The republicans have for all time here on out, squandered any remaining good will I might have had. RIP Republican Party.

Anonymous said...

This falls under the theme of playing with the cards one is dealt with. There are three scenarios the intrepid counter-Jihadists have to consider: either Obama, Clinton, or McCain gets his/her hot little hands on the presidency. It's best to prepare for all eventualities and have a framework to deal with each personality.

Always On Watch said...

As far as I can tell, no matter who is elected to the Presidency, the next four years are going to be hideous.

It seems that the Bush administration has protected our national security here in the homeland very well. And what has been the ideological result? The average American is snoozing at the wheel and thinking that another attack won't come and that 9/11 was a fluke never to be repeated.

The latest (?) dhimmitudinal crap from the Bush administration--don't say "jihad"--is proof positive to me that this administration does not get it and does not believe that "the bad thing" will come our way.

This came up in my Google alerts today:

Terms to use and avoid when talking about terrorism

By The Associated Press – 2 days ago

Some do's and don't's from the National Counterterrorism Center:

_ Don't use the term "jihadist," which has broader religious meanings beyond war, or "mujahedeen," which refers to holy warriors.

_ Do say "violent extremist" or "terrorist."

_ Don't use the term "al-Qaida movement," because this makes al-Qaida seem like a legitimate political movement.

_ Don't use "Islamo-fascism" and other terms that could cause religious offense.

_ Do use the term "totalitarian."

_ Don't label groups simply as "Muslim."

_ Do use descriptive terms to define how a group fits into society. For example: South Asian youth and Arab opinion leaders.

_ Don't use "caliphate" when explaining al-Qaida's goals, as this has positive implications.

_ Don't use "salafi," "Wahhabist," "sufi," "ummah" and other words from Islamic theology unless you are able to discuss their varied meanings. Particularly avoid using "ummah" to mean the Muslim world, as it is a theological term.

Talk about ostriching! Deny, deny, deny. And that will make the problem go away???

The United States is not presently fighting this war, on the ground or via verbiage, to win. So let's lose a round, and come back afterwards and fight and WIN the war.

I wonder how many will have to die before we get down to business?

And you know what would be worse? Western civilization fading away with a whimper into full submission because we can't even name the enemy.

I need a drink--a lot of drinks. And the cupboard is bare. Ugh!

Epaminondas said...

This is a fun, but fool's game.

If you read the strategic plan of the other side in the Sunni camp you think they cared if was a Belisarius or Alexius III, or if it was Pope Gregory or John? Or King Richard or Louis, or Charles Martel or some total barbarian with no letters? On the Shia side we have no need of even a hint of a guess. Their planner has SAID Bush is an exception in the complete retreat of the risk averse west, and they conduct themselves in this way. EVERY FUCKING DAY.

Neither McCain nor Obama will make a whit of difference to the planners on the other side.

Worse still, what is the difference between Reid saying 'this war is lost' and us saying Obama will hasten the real war since we are in essence planning on his actions to lose badly enough to bring about decisive action?

It is the NATURE of democracies to have to get kicked in the ass to take action. HARD. IMHO. That's a function of our society and our freedoms. NOT the president. That's WHY democracies don't go to war against each other, EVER. There's nothing to rouse us that level against the other PEOPLE. And that is what will be required, the desire to kill NOT Achmadinejad, and the salafist ginstu wielding zarkoids, but the PEOPLE of the other side. How does that get put into the hearts of the american people?

Who is president when this next plan of those who hate our way of life comes to fruition WILL make a lot of difference (Gore on 9/11?), and McCain has a much better chance, being the KIND OF GUY he is to get in front of the microphone after an attack and SPILL THE FUCKING BEANS.

I intend to work for McCain as hard as I can.

Pastorius said...

You're talking reason in an unreasonable time.

WC said...

Yes. America. Like EPA said. We need a swift kick in the ass.

I'm reminded of the character Sean Connery played in Rising Sun.

"We're playing that most American of games. Catch up."

Anonymous said...

If the Dems win I can only hope it brings an end to all the conspiracy theories they have dreamed-up for everything.