George Friedman of Stratfor.com (subscription only) says that since 9/11/2001, Osama bin Laden has been a spent force, but the United States has undergone a "much more profound" transformation. We've been worn down, and have become cynical. We're exhausted.
That is the single most important outcome of the war. What happens to bin Laden is, in the end, about as important as what happened to [Che] Guevara. Legends will be made of it -- not history. But when the world's leading power falls into the psychological abyss brought about by time and war, the entire world is changed by it. Every country rethinks its position and its actions. Everything changes.That is what is important about the Petraeus report. He will ask for more time. Congress will give it to him. The president will take it. Time, however, has its price not only in war but also psychologically. And if the request for time leads to more failure and the American psychology is further battered, then that is simply more time that other powers, great and small, will have to take advantage of the situation. The United States has psychologically begun tearing itself apart over both the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Whatever your view of that, it is a fact -- a serious geopolitical fact.
The Petraeus report will not address that. It is out of the general's area of responsibility. But the pressing issue is this: If the United States continues the war and if it maintains its vigilance against attacks, how does the evolution of the American psyche play out?
Indeed. Thoughts? It's arguable that al-Qaeda could probably do more damage to this country in the long run by not attacking us in the short term.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Red Dirt? I wonder if you are using that word as it was meant to be used, you know, patriot.
You really blew it when you included [w]e're running ads accusing a wartime general of being a traitor and getting away with it... under your label of "dystopian" and linked to your acclamation of being patriot to the core.
A true patriot insists on protection of rights for everyone, not just those who agree with him.
Perhaps you'd like to clarify, and maybe think a bit longer before posting.
Red Dirt wrote well. Franklin and DU-eye, on the other hand ....
DU, perhaps you would tell us what the, say, 1760 and 1860 equivalents of the Britney Spears phenomenon were -- what single lewd trivium consumed as much of the national conversation? But I'm glad to know you will carry on without us, because you are very good at carrying on.
As for Franklin, either you misunderstood RD when he wrote his dismay that MoveOn got away with no significant protest -- certainly none from Dems -- to its ad, or you believe that the curtailment of civil rights to folks like RD is justified by their disagreement with you. Perhaps you'd like to clarify, and maybe think a bit longer before posting.
A raised glass to you Red Dirt. I grant you respect for having the courage to buck the tide and making well stated points. Don't know how you have the energy to fight but keep on. For my part I just get too disheartened to engage after I read some of the stuff that gets posted. Reading some of the criticism one suspects your thought process too deep for clarity and hard to grasp by libertarians and leftist thinkers.
I think your idea that China could be an ally gives me pause. I had previously been gravely concerned about that country and what I perceive to be the detrimental effects it is having on our economy and thus our labor force but you point to an interesting perspective. Perhaps I must reconsider.
George, where you got the idea that I wanted to silence Red Dirt is beyond me. Perhaps you'd care to expand on that.
I get the impression that "patriotism" is being redefined as "trust and support our leaders, or be branded as traitors." I won't stay silent in that particular process.
Perhaps you'd be reassured by this: dialogue is the heart and soul of democracy. The moment we suppress any speech (political correctness, hate crimes, assumption of guilt) is the moment we stop being a democracy.
Disagreement always comes first. Consensus is what comes from finding what common ground is possible, and applying objective standards to what is right, wrong, legal or illegal. The MoveOn ad, for example, might have been stupid (it was), ill advised (only in the minds of those who would rather not be confronted with disagreement) and not factual (something Petraeus had plenty of time to show, and then did so), but it was not outside of the democratic process.
I'm not yet at the point of fully agreeing with Red Dirt, but I'm much afraid that he may be right. When I read this from John Derbyshire a couple of weeks ago, I thought good grief, he's right:
"For if there is a sickness in the soul of Islam, there is a corresponding sickness in the soul of the West. As the darkness, cruelty, and obscurantism of jihadist Islam, described in such detail in this book, descend on our lands, our souls rise joyfully to greet them."
I disagree massively with Derb about a lot, including most of the article from which this quote is taken (I'm not including the link since Beliefnet seems to be touchy about that--a search for "derbyshire spencer islam" will get you there). So let's not go off on what-all else Derb is wrong about: in this paragraph I think he is dead right about the death wish that's clearly abroad in much of the post-Christian West.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.