"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:23:32 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We
need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than
hoping
that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work.

While this sounds good and noble on its face, it doesn't really work
in the real world. Lyndon Johnson's plea to "reason together" isn't a
good prescription for the elimination of terrorists. When Islamic
terrorists attack the US, destroy the WTC, damage the Pentagon and
attempt to destroy the White House and Capital, you can't simply say,
"Oh, we didn't know you were so upset. What can we do to make it
right."

Give Israel a good spanking when it needs it. Settling the occupied
terrorities was really stupid.



A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our
economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us
down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't
and arguably can't win their "hearts and minds." You kill them and
create a political situation that can allow the masses of Arab people
some hope for a democratic future.

Just how many do you plan to kill? 10, 20, 30 million? There are religious
schools all over the Niddle east teaching children that america is the
enemy. There are over a billion Muslims, If only 10% hold extemist views
thats a 100 million.

And before someone out in the peanu gallery calls me an anti-semite. I
fully support the right of Israel to exist. I just wish Israel would be
smarter about doing it.




(Note the evolution of democracy in
Iran which has seemingly turned the corner from rule by the mullahs
and now seeks a return to progressivism.)

The last Iranian election seemed to be a step backwards as candidates had to
be "mullah approved"




This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they
need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses.
Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the
hardest.
We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins
the
next election leaves office.

But, if step one (ouster of Saddam) hadn't taken place, would there be
even the glimmer of hope for a government based on democratic
principles?

Might have been a lot brighter picture if we could have worked better with
the UN and our allies. I have a sneaking suspicion that their decision may
not have been based on how they perceived the threat of Iraq under Sadaam
but whether or not they wanted to do it with George "my way or the highway"
Bush in charge. Roosevelt had people working on the occupation of Germany
in 1943. These guys, who have planned this war since 1998 didn't start
until Baghdad fell.

Ultimately we aren't going to know until US troops leave.


I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November

The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist
movement. It also sounds good on its face. But, the principle that
violence increases fails upon historic examination. The violence of
Hiroshima didn't beget more violence,

There is a good argument that it wasn't the A-bombs but the Soviets entry
to the war that did the trick



it toppled the regime and
created a free and democratic industrialized economic powerhouse. The
violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence,
it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe.

Apples and oranges. This war is nothing like WWII. Don't mistake my
opposition to Bush for pacifism. I spent a few years on willy airplane
patch in the comm unit (76-80). I fully support the war against Bin-laden
and Al-queda. I think the war though in Iraq is a misguided side show that
wasted resources like RC-135's and arab speaking green berets which could
have been used better in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When your boot is on the enemies throat you don't let up. Bush did and now
he needs to pay for it.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org