OT: Jonah Goldberg's The difference between this war and the last one

[Guest guest]

Trying to remain devoutely non-political here, just posting a point of

view.....

J. Pedersen DC

From Jonah Goldberg's new book:

But, since I'm on this topic, let me make two simple points. First, the

Cold War was a conflict in which the actions of our enemies were

essentially rational. The spoiled secular aristocrats who ran the Soviet

Union didn't want to get incinerated in a nuclear war. Their tactics and

ambitions reflected this, particularly in the second half of the

conflict. The Politburo became, essentially, small-c conservative: evil

and tyrannical, but pretty darn cautious about not doing anything to

lose their dachas.

Our current enemy is the complete and total opposite. Where the Soviets

were rational and bent on self-preservation, the Islamists are

irrational and relatively comfortable with suicide. Where the Soviets

were dependent on conventional armaments and interested in diplomatic

routes, the Islamists must use non-traditional, barbaric terrorism.

Where the Soviets had defined borders and interests, the Islamists

merely have a vast sea of people and nations to roam, their interests

and assets submerged in shadowy webs and networks that mostly exist

below the radar of the legal economy.

But most important: The Soviets could be deterred; the Islamists cannot

be. It is the difference between fighting a bastard of a neighbor who's

got a home and family to defend and fighting a Manson cult that

wanders into town. I don't mean to downplay the institutionalized evil

that was the Soviet Union; I still think we blew it when we didn't knock

out Stalin in 1946. That was a blunder that makes not cleaning out

Fallujah look like forgetting to put the garbage out. But, as a

foreign-policy challenge, diplomacy with the Soviets was often practical

and, needless to say, possible.

There simply is no diplomacy with the enemy today. So, that means going

on offense. That means taking the fight to them. That means, in the

short term, " creating " more extremists and terrorists by fighting on

their home turf. But the point isn't merely to fight them, it's to pull

the rug out from under them. The ultimate goal is democracy, of course.

But the interim goal is to rationalize the Middle East so that, while it

may still produce enemies, they will be ones we can deal with around a

table, not a crater. And the short-term goal is to kill lots of them

where they live, instead of them doing the same to us.

_________________

-----

[Guest guest]

Jack and All,

IMHO, Goldberg's point of view is hampered by a " black and white " , us versus

them, exceptionalist view of the US position in the world.

For a more complete vision of the " war " between the " good guys " and the " bad

guts " I'd recommend Barber's book, " Jihad versus McWorld. " It

challenges the notion that " ...the Islamists are

irrational and relatively comfortable with suicide... "

Still Left after all these years.

C Simpson

OT: Jonah Goldberg's " The difference between this war

and the last one "

Trying to remain devoutely non-political here, just posting a point of

view.....

J. Pedersen DC

From Jonah Goldberg's new book:

But, since I'm on this topic, let me make two simple points. First, the

Cold War was a conflict in which the actions of our enemies were

essentially rational. The spoiled secular aristocrats who ran the Soviet

Union didn't want to get incinerated in a nuclear war. Their tactics and

ambitions reflected this, particularly in the second half of the

conflict. The Politburo became, essentially, small-c conservative: evil

and tyrannical, but pretty darn cautious about not doing anything to

lose their dachas.

Our current enemy is the complete and total opposite. Where the Soviets

were rational and bent on self-preservation, the Islamists are

irrational and relatively comfortable with suicide. Where the Soviets

were dependent on conventional armaments and interested in diplomatic

routes, the Islamists must use non-traditional, barbaric terrorism.

Where the Soviets had defined borders and interests, the Islamists

merely have a vast sea of people and nations to roam, their interests

and assets submerged in shadowy webs and networks that mostly exist

below the radar of the legal economy.

But most important: The Soviets could be deterred; the Islamists cannot

be. It is the difference between fighting a bastard of a neighbor who's

got a home and family to defend and fighting a Manson cult that

wanders into town. I don't mean to downplay the institutionalized evil

that was the Soviet Union; I still think we blew it when we didn't knock

out Stalin in 1946. That was a blunder that makes not cleaning out

Fallujah look like forgetting to put the garbage out. But, as a

foreign-policy challenge, diplomacy with the Soviets was often practical

and, needless to say, possible.

There simply is no diplomacy with the enemy today. So, that means going

on offense. That means taking the fight to them. That means, in the

short term, " creating " more extremists and terrorists by fighting on

their home turf. But the point isn't merely to fight them, it's to pull

the rug out from under them. The ultimate goal is democracy, of course.

But the interim goal is to rationalize the Middle East so that, while it

may still produce enemies, they will be ones we can deal with around a

table, not a crater. And the short-term goal is to kill lots of them

where they live, instead of them doing the same to us.

_________________

-----

OregonDCs rules:

1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve

members will be tolerated.

2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere. However,

it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward, or

otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his or

her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

[Guest guest]

Hmmmmmmmm…… That sound a lot

like same rational used in the 1100’s for justification of the crusades……………………..

P.

Thille, D.C., FACO

Redmond, OR

From: JPedersenDC

[mailto:chirodoc1@...]

Sent: Wednesday, September 22,

2004 7:27 AM

oregon dcs

Subject: OT: Jonah

Goldberg's " The difference between this war and the last one "

Trying to remain devoutely non-political here, just posting a point of

view.....

J. Pedersen DC

From Jonah Goldberg's new book:

But, since I'm on this topic, let me make two

simple points. First, the

Cold War was a conflict in which the actions of

our enemies were

essentially rational. The spoiled secular

aristocrats who ran the Soviet

Union didn't want to get incinerated in a nuclear war. Their

tactics and

ambitions reflected this, particularly in the

second half of the

conflict. The Politburo became, essentially,

small-c conservative: evil

and tyrannical, but pretty darn cautious about not

doing anything to

lose their dachas.

Our current enemy is the complete and total

opposite. Where the Soviets

were rational and bent on self-preservation, the

Islamists are

irrational and relatively comfortable with

suicide. Where the Soviets

were dependent on conventional armaments and

interested in diplomatic

routes, the Islamists must use non-traditional,

barbaric terrorism.

Where the Soviets had defined borders and

interests, the Islamists

merely have a vast sea of people and nations to

roam, their interests

and assets submerged in shadowy webs and networks

that mostly exist

below the radar of the legal economy.

But most important: The Soviets could be deterred;

the Islamists cannot

be. It is the difference between fighting a

bastard of a neighbor who's

got a home and family to defend and fighting a

Manson cult that

wanders into town. I don't mean to downplay the

institutionalized evil

that was the Soviet Union;

I still think we blew it when we didn't knock

out Stalin in 1946. That was a blunder that makes

not cleaning out

Fallujah look like forgetting to put the garbage

out. But, as a

foreign-policy challenge, diplomacy with the

Soviets was often practical

and, needless to say, possible.

There simply is no diplomacy with the enemy today.

So, that means going

on offense. That means taking the fight to them.

That means, in the

short term, " creating " more extremists

and terrorists by fighting on

their home turf. But the point isn't merely to

fight them, it's to pull

the rug out from under them. The ultimate goal is

democracy, of course.

But the interim goal is to rationalize the Middle East so that, while it

may still produce enemies, they will be ones we

can deal with around a

table, not a crater. And the short-term goal is to

kill lots of them

where they live, instead of them doing the same to

us.

_________________

-----

OregonDCs

rules:

1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose

of the listserve is to foster communication and collegiality. No personal

attacks on listserve members will be tolerated.

2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and

last name.

3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could

end up anywhere. However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy,

print, forward, or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another

member without his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been

removed.

[Guest guest]

Bingo MIchael,

I agree. Is it any wonder that the people of the middle east see our adventure

in Iraq as another crusade.

Will Schneider