Publius Archive

'Now With Attenuated Live Thought Viruses'

WARNING:

INFORMATION FOR PHILOSOPHICAL USE ONLY!

Always use inflammatory information in a well

ventilated area and wear protective headgear

when conducting dangerous thought-experiments.

Information not good after curfew in

Sectors 'R' or 'M.'

Saturday, July 09, 2005

A target for Islamist terrorists that is not Israel?!

One excerpt from this 2003 Andrew Sullivan musing has been making the rounds on the Progressive Blogs following the London bombings. Ever since the "Bring-em-'On" strategy was enunciated, those capable of abstract thought have been pointing out that terrorism is not a zero-sum-game, and that the laws of unintended consequences still hold.

... Some time before the Iraq war, I found myself musing out loud to someone close to the inner circles of the Bush administration. We were talking about the post-war scenario, something that even then was a source of some worry even to gung-ho hawks like myself....
...And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured.

Reading the whole 2003 Sullivan post, something else in it jumped out that I think should be raising more of an alarm than it is:

"The extra beauty of this strategy is that it creates a target for Islamist terrorists that is not Israel. "

SAY WHAT? Since when are we supposed to be mopping up Israel's greatest security threats? Iraq, Iran, Syria... One may argue that we hold these strategic threats in common, but look at the reality. Our little venture into Iraq has been unquestionably to the benefit of Israel. On the ground, any advantage to the US has not been so clear to say the least.

Remember, The main neocon architects of this war- Wolfowitz, Perle and particularly Feith (the child of holocaust survivors) are staunch Zionists.

You know, George Washington gets dissed as not being an intellectual (after all, he did speak of the necessity of religious thought in government), but as a statesman, at the end of his career, he saw it all coming. I think it's time for another consultation with him.

-----------------------------------------

He speaks to both our relationship with Israel as well as Britain's modern relationship with us:

Washington's Farewell Address, Part III

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils ? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.