Why and How We Must Confront Michael Moore – by David Swindle

moore_l

Does everyone remember what happened when we withdrew from Vietnam?

David Horowitz has a good summary and notes that the surrender of South Vietnam to communism,

… resulted in the imposition of a monstrous police state, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent South Vietnamese, the incarceration in reeducation camps of hundreds of thousands more and a quarter of a century of abject poverty imposed by crackpot Marxist economic plans, which continue to this day. This, too, is the responsibility of the so-called antiwar movement of the 1960s.

But who’s going to expect the Left to properly understand history?

No, in neo-communist filmmaker Michael Moore’s new open letter to President Barack Obama (published at, where else, Huffington Post) he urges a withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan, completely blind to the consequences:

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it’s time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, “No, we don’t need health care, we don’t need jobs, we don’t need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, ’cause we don’t need them, either.”

We can abandon Afghanistan and it can revert to being an Islamist police state run by the Taliban. It can return to being a safe haven for those who want to destroy America, exterminate the Jewish race, and create a world in which marrying children and mutilating women’s genitals are the norm.

War is indeed hell — not that I’m in any way qualified to make that judgment. (Read Karen Northon to get a more informed view. Patriotic heroes like Leo Thorsness also have a thing or two to say on the matter.) But which is worse: war or a totalitarian police state? Which was worse in the ’60s and ’70s: the Vietnam war or the Communist police state which followed? Which is worse today: the Afghanistan War or an Islamist police state?

Here’s the confrontation that needs to be had. Moore and other so-called “progressives” consider conservatives to be “greedy.” The Left thinks we should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and then spend that money on universal healthcare and federal jobs programs. To do otherwise is to be “greedy.”

The practical result of this would be Islamists being empowered. More women would be shoved into forced marriages, their faces mutilated with acid, and their lives spent hidden in burqas. More gays would be executed for being gay. An ideology bent on world domination would be further empowered. And why would this happen? Because “progressives” want government to give them money and make their lives easier.

And conservatives are the “greedy” ones? How does that work?

*****

Because I’m an ex-leftist I know what some of the responses are going to be to the above argument. So let’s just preempt a few of them them right now:

1. The Marionette argument: “Dave, we can’t be Team America World Police. We can’t afford to send troops everywhere to stop every dictator.” Well duh. And no conservative is saying that we should. But we can recognize that the Islamist ideology is a threat that we cannot allow to grow stronger by retreating in Afghanistan. Are the US and Afghanistan better off with us continuing to fight? Or is it better for both countries that we surrender and head home so that ? There is an obvious answer here.

2. The Chickenhawk argument: “Oh yeah? You think we should fight in Afghanistan? Then you go over there and fight.” This is, of course, an ad hominem logical fallacy, but as I’ve demonstrated before true believers of all ideologies fail to grasp the difference between this and legitimate intellectual discussion. Upon encountering the Chickenhawk argument you should immediately realize that you’re dealing with someone who is unable to think rationally.

3. The Oversimplification argument: “Come on Dave, you’re oversimplifying when you talk about the Left. It’s not one monolithic entity and not all progressives think one way.” This is correct, but beside the point. There are plenty of dissenting views on the Left. (See this Michael Tomasky piece in which he goes after Moore for his open letter.)

And when I’m critiquing leftist activists and polemicists I’m not generally attacking citizens who merely identify with the Left, watch Keith Olbermann, and occasionally donate to MoveOn.Org. The radical core is significantly different than the by-and-large apolitical masses. This is a subject I hope to address at greater length at some point in the future.

  • USMCSniper

    Grungy Glutton, aka Michael Moore, is a gutless coward who wouldn't fight even if he was directly attacked . He is just another loudmouth uneducated fool who knows less than nothing, because all he knoes is wrong.

  • Proxywar

    Well you forgot to mention the progressives favorite argument Afghanistan is the grave of empries. They read one book and think they understand the entire history of Afghanistan.

    “This refrain belongs, as they say now in the military, in the graveyard of analogies. The Soviets, in particular, teach us how not to win in Afghanistan. A heavily mechanized force, the Red Army was ill-suited for Afghanistan's treacherous terrain, and it was dependent on long, vulnerable supply lines. It also discouraged innovative junior leadership, which is critical against an insurgency. To compensate, the Soviets employed vicious, massively destructive tactics that inflamed the Afghan people and still scar the country with depopulated valleys and adult amputees maimed as children by toy-shaped mines. Our present way of war couldn't be more different. We deploy light and wheeled infantry to Afghanistan, making our tactics more flexible, our supply lines shorter, and our soldiers more engaged with the locals. We also radically decentralize decision-making authority to our junior soldiers and leaders, who increasingly can draw on years of combat experience. In short, America has a counter-insurgency strategy, whereas the Soviet Union had a genocide strategy. Afghans I spoke with always recognized the difference, reviled the Russians, and respected our troops. Max Boot makes a similar point in Commentary, The two most commonly cited examples in support of this proposition are the British in the 19th century and the Russians in the 1980s. This selective history conveniently omits the military success enjoyed by earlier conquerors, from Alexander the Great in the 4th century b.c.e. to Babur (founder of the Mughal Empire) in the 16th century. In any case, neither the British nor the Russians ever employed proper counterinsurgency tactics. The British briefly occupied Kabul on two occasions (1839 and 1879) and then pulled out, turning Afghanistan into a buffer zone between the Russian Empire and their own. In the 1980s, the Russians employed scorched-earth tactics, killing large numbers of civilians and turning much of the country against them. Neither empire had popular support on its side, as foreign forces do today.”

    The problem Dave is they think the enemy is not real. They fall into the following camps of thought: They think conservative-kooks have ethier made this enemy up, helped create this enemy, overstated this enemies ruthless determined capabilities, or that America deserves whatever so-called “blowback” she gets. ie. 9/11 is justice to them. Until you show them how all of these arguments are ethier false or based on specious evidence at best, you will never reach anyone on the left. Moreover, nor will your message ever be considered a serious argument. You see dave, they think Bush LIED, thus they think every conservative who breathes is a lair by default. It's a hasty-generalization-fallacy but they make it nonetheless and win hearts and minds by doing so. Most of them simplely don't have the mental capacity of a Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq to research islam indepth, learn Arabic, and then to expose islam for what it really is, a political, militarial, theological religion. ie. It's not a religion at all. However, due to most of progressives simplistic moral equivalence philosophy to them Islam is like every other religion. Thus, you will never convince them islam is BAD. However, some of them are hypocrites for they are convinced christianity/judaism are BAD. Though if you get into a conversation with one of them about this they will never admit it. Not all of them think this way, but a good number of the intelligent ones I know do.

    Bottom line…

    Most of them don't like nation building in other countries (they perfer dictators stay in power and abuse their people) Of course if you call them on this the clever progressives will just bring up Reagan > Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Though, Jimmy Carter had just as much to do with Pahlavi as Reagan did, but lets ignore that for now. Becuase this type of argument is nothing more than a strawman fallacy put up in self-defense of party-lines. Therefore, One should ask would any of these progressives dare argue Iran is better off with the Ayatollah than with Pahlavi?
    I'm not saying Pahlavi was a saint because he definitely wasn't but he was not as inhumane as Ayatollah Khomeini. After all, this is the Gulf and Middleast we are talking about, one has to work with what they got. Thus, Pahlavi was humane compared to the rulers that surrounded him at that time.

    Moreover, Progressives also assume because Bush & Reagan liked to nation build that all conservatives back this philosophy every time. When in reality most conservatives know democracy in most parts of the middleast is a pipe dream.
    We are pragmatic when it comes to nation building. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. But we always try to rid the world of evil tyrants. Though, sometimes unintended consequences do happen. But what do “progressives” ever do? Besides act like they care? As if that stops evil tyrants. Do they try to make the world better or do they just perfer the status-quo? Which is worse, To hear no, speak no, see no evil? Or to have a code of virtues and ethics that try to defeat this evil and make the world a better place little by little when able too? Seems to me, most progressives don't really care about fixing things in the Sudan, Armenia, the Congo, Sri Lanka, Somalia, etc… Or any other place where suppression, oppression, slavery, and real genocides take place. Yet Israel is protested against and some progressives wouldn't mind attacking lsrael for defending itself. Israel is not perfect (who is?) but ethically-speaking they are miles above the tyrannical Muslim nations. Basically, Morals aside… you lack ethics and consistency. Where as conservatives understand unlike Bush did that the Ummah can not be trusted to vote for ethical non-jahidist leadership. (Though Iraq maybe the exception to this rule) Thus, the best solution in the meddleeast is stabilizing the governments but not democracy building. Then existing and carring out a non-violent cold war strategy against the muslim nations.

    Basically, what I'm saying to most progressives is this your explanations are frivolous and too simplistic (eg. Blood for Oil) not to mention most of you ignore the context of history for sound bits.

    What obama did was simple. He equivocally surrendered in Afghanistan. He did not define victory. Instead, He set a time-table for withdraw by july 2011 the same year we will withdraw from Iraq. He did not mention if our stay would be prolonged or not based on the progress on the ground of the goals he set. Maybe the dates are coincidence, but I doubt that because it took him three months to plan this all out inorder to sell it to the American public. Color me cynical, but I assume he will use this as his political strategy for keeping the white house in 2012. Regardless of the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan by 2011 this man will exist and then proceed to shower himself in praise with accompilishing peace in the meddleeast where none will actually exist. The MSM will back-up this poppycock while jihadist plot, murder, enslave, rape, as inequality between men and women continues in the far-east business as usual. Then you will see the true face of progressives who care not one iota about the Iraqi and Afghan people. Then you will see that the Iraqi and Afghan people were nothing more than political-fodder for progressives agenda.

  • http://twitter.com/ARKovnat Alex Kovnat

    Don't forget to mention the destruction of well over a million lives in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. That's what you get when you say that America “can't fight communism everywhere.”

  • Robert Bernier

    Every American should know the truth

    No one should miss this video:

    http://xrl.us/bf29mb

    Look to the end ( 10 min.)

  • AndyFree

    No, that's what you get when you torment a rural population long enough, as the US had been doing there and has been doing again in Afghanistan (even if only topping up what was done by the Russians).

    Almost nobody cares how many Cambodians were killed by the US before this effect took hold – but the estimates run up to 600,000.

    Many more people were killed in Vietnam, to somewhat less disastrous effect but the lessons there are to be ignored too.

  • andyFree

    What a nonsense argument – there are indeed lessons to be learned from Vietnam, but they cannot possibly come from people who think that 58,000 died and it was “America's Tragedy”.

    It's particularly dumb when Iraq has been such a disaster. Fear of a non-existent terrorism there has led to a high probability that it will become a safe-haven for terrorists, under the protection of either untouchable Saudi or a soon to be nuclear Iran.

  • Proxywar

    Told ya so mr. horowtiz.

    Their moral equivalence philosophy does not understand history.

    They only give sound bits inorder to give the impression what they have persented is the equivalent. When clearly by reading the slop they write one could make numerous abjections. 1.) Cambodian deaths though regreatable were collateral damage. Where as the Kumar rouge and NVC deliberately and
    systematically murdered 2 million cambodians after we withdrew. Sorry but, in matters like this “Concious matters” it seperates men Ideally. 2.) Your source could be fake. 3.) Yes, people care, but it's you who doesn't care what the Kumar Rouge or NVC did. Thus, why you keep appling the fallacy of Red-herring.

    This guys is even against American self-defense against the Taliban and Al-qaeda in Afghanistan. He obviously plays the syllogism game where America is evil no matter what she does. Yet his ethics are quite on all other wars and conflicts around the globe. He saves his anger for those who protected themselves after 9/11. Whatever he is he is not American.

  • Bellerophon

    While Obama's policies will turn Afghanistan back into a Taliban state, there is no talk of Bush's colossal failure to identify our actual enemy.

    We were not attacked by a small fringe element of Islam, nor were we attacked by the entire Islamic world. We were attacked by the nation of Afghanistan through a surrogate – Al Qaeda.

    The proper response was what we did to Japan – complete annihilation and forced submission of the Afghan nation. The entire country needed to be destroyed, its cities, its railroads, its highways, its power plants — everything bombed and burned.

    Instead our opening volley was food drops to our enemy.

    No country's government can sustain itself without the endorsement, or at least the acquiescence, of its people. It is the people of Afghanistan that attacked America and the attack was the product of their fundamental belief that no action in the name of Allah can be wrong.

    In 1941 Japan was a country of such barbaric cruelty that it dwarfed the horrors of the Taliban. The Rape of Nanking was the single greatest atrocity in human history. The country responsible for it was caught in the most vicious philosophy ever generated in the Orient – militarist Shinto — in which no action committed in the name of the Emperor could be wrong.

    Should we have dropped food on Japan instead of fire bombing Tokyo? Would that have forced the Japanese to abandon their philosophy and surrender, or would it have emboldened them even more?

    The present policy is doomed because it will not fundamentally change Afghanistan the way the utter destruction of Japan and Germany led to the creation of two countries that today are among the most civilized places on earth.

    Until the philosophy behind the Taliban is discredited the problem of Afghanistan will remain intractable. That philosophy will end when it is completely defeated on the battlefield and the Afghan people made to pay dearly for adhering to it.

  • tlwinslow

    Too bad, Catholic Moore is a history ignoramus when it comes to Islam, else he'd understand that the U.S. must keep the Taliban from taking it over again and inviting their al-Qaida friends back and let them set up new training bases, not to mention destabilizing the Pakistani govt. with all them nukes so al-Qaida can get their hands on them and set them off in Israel and the U.S. He should do his homework by studying the 7th cent. rise, spread and core beliefs of this mental AIDS and see why it's the enemy of the world that is threatening the total destruction of Western civilization and values. They don't care, they just don't care as much as Moore does :) Study it all free online with the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory

  • jackbelias

    The letter is offensive on many levels. He injects himself into the military community while not even being capable of serving. How fast do you think he runs 2 miles? How about 3 for the Marine Corps? Id bet a million dollars he cant do more than 2 situps and 4 pushups.

    His use of “we” is angering as he assumes us a part of his radical leftist BS movement. We exist to defend the ideals of the republic and the American way of life, not messiahs in the white house, not social “change”.

    He is typical of filthy rich communists. He goes on and on about a need for an end of wealth, individuality, and private property while having having more wealth and property than 99% of America. His faithful subjects fall for his BS hook line and sinker while failing to see the sprawling estates and 200,000.00 sports cars in the driveway.

  • jackhampton

    We lied to the South Vietnamese and the democrats would not follow up on the promises made to them at the negotiating table. As Ford begged for the Congress to fund the actions needed to stop the drive south mainlt air strikes the leftist turned there collective butts and the rest is history milliond died in Cambodia Laos and South Vietnam but not one tear from Fonda or the comunist supporters. Moore is simply a fat Jane Fonda.

  • 2maxpower

    yes I agree he is working with a deficit of knowledge.

    regards

  • 2maxpower

    I agree Michael Moore is working with a deficit of knowledge.

    regards

  • bobrjr29

    mikey (fatboy) moore is a hypocrite of the worst kind…he's lied so often he believe's his
    own crapola…he is just another limo liberal…he actually lives in multi million dollar apartment in the rich part of new york city and sends his kids to elite private schools…all the while portending to be an average joe…not true at all…a big fat liar indeed…

  • bearone7777

    Hello,
    This is a face only a mmother would dare to love, and I mean that in the most literal of ways. What a watse of human life. He still thinks that his nonsense is relevant to mankind in society today. I have the answer right now. It is hell no. He is a loser, and that is that.

    Thanks,
    Larry D. Crumbley

  • S.G.Pillai

    If America stays and wins the war in Afghanistan at the end of the day it will still be a Islamic republic ruled by Sharia law. It is in their constitution. Is it worth shedding American blood and money?

  • Question_Assumptions

    No, nobody remembers what happened when we withdrew from Vietnam, especially if they are under 50, because the left that controls the mainstream media and education in this country leaves all of that out to leave people with the impression that abandoning Vietnam and letting the communists win was a good thing. If it weren't for so many bodies that they couldn't ignore, they'd probably give people the impression that letting the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia was for the best, too.

  • smokehouse

    Really, who care what this moron thinks. He's just looking for publicity and the media complies. The liberal media are much more dangerous than this slob.

  • chisco1

    “The practical result of this would be Islamists being empowered. More women would be shoved into forced marriages, their faces mutilated with acid, and their lives spent hidden in burqas. More gays would be executed for being gay. An ideology bent on world domination would be further empowered. And why would this happen? Because 'progressives' want government to give them money and make their lives easier.”

    But, David, you missed Michael's point — Mikey wants what Mikey wants, and he doesn't care what disastrous effects HIS WISHES will inflict on Afghan women and children – Mikey wants something from obama, and he's DETERMINED to get what he wants, the consequences for OTHERS be damned!

    What Mikey SHOULD do is go stuff another Twinkie (or 20!) into his fat face and shut up like the good little IGNORANT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS numbnuts that he is!

  • babsst

    Your comment about “politcal strategy for keeping the White House in 2012 is dead on…at least, I heard that SAME comment by a conservative radio host. His sending troops right now will appease those that wanted it, and exiting Afghanistan in 2011 will appease the libs that didn't want him to send more now. So basically, it seems, that he REALLY is making decisions on what is best for him. Thomas Sowell commented that politicians 2 main worries in life, is #1 getting elected and #2 how to get re elected. How true. I wonder if ANY of them REALLY care for this country at all?

  • hoolad

    Islam is pure evil to the core. islam is not a religion but a political movement to achieve global dominance. Show me a churhc or a hindu temple or a jewish temple in saudia arabia. Go to Egypt and see how they deal with the Coptic Christains, the egyptians treat them like animals, burn down their chruches at every riot and they dont allow new chruches to be build, infact you have to ask permission from the president of egypt to build a church. Remind you, Egypt was a Coptic Christain Country before Islam took over with the sword and now coptic christains are a minority in their own country. I Guess the Swiss have realized the danger soon…..

    In Turkey, they have taken Hagia Sofia Church and turned it to a Mosque, then into a museum. Still they will not give back Hagia Sofia to be a church again. Muslims are hypocrates. Turkey has a mission to wipe off all churches and convert them into secular museums and thus will elimanate the christains populations.

    Christains are not allowed to be christains in middle-east, period. Now muslims shout. Give me a church, hindu temple, jewish temple, buddist temple or any other temple in the heart of Mecca or Medina and then I will voice my dis-taste for the swiss vote.

    http://www.faithfreedom.org
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
    http://www.thethirdjihad.com

  • http://twitter.com/HereticsCrusade Heretic Crusader

    Dear Flying-Horse Tamer;
    What reality are you inhabiting?

    While Obama's policies will turn Afghanistan back into a Taliban state, there is no talk of Bush's colossal failure to identify our actual enemy.

    It is Obama's continuation of Bush's policy that is leading back to the Taliban. It was the BUSH admin that allowed their constitution to enshrine Sharia, though I am sure the Big O would have approved it as well.

    We were not attacked by a small fringe element of Islam, nor were we attacked by the entire Islamic world. We were attacked by the nation of Afghanistan through a surrogate – Al Qaeda.

    If 9/11 was not radical Islamists acting out Islamist imperatives after gaining control of Afghanistan just WHAT was the motive for the nation of Afghanistan to attack us? If it wasn't radical Islamists controlling the movement why were we WELCOMED by the people when we first invaded and overthrew the Taliban?

    The proper response was what we did to Japan – complete annihilation and forced submission of the Afghan nation. The entire country needed to be destroyed, its cities, its railroads, its highways, its power plants — everything bombed and burned.

    In WHAT way is Afghanistan even remotely like early 20th Century Japan?
    Japan was a fully industrialized nation with a cohesive culture, society and government not a collection of impoverished agricultural tribal regions pretending to be a country. Your comparison is ONLY really valid in that both societies suffered the imposition of a dramatically violent ideology on the majority. Anyone who has looked at the history of WWII with more than half an eye can see that the progressive militarization of Japan in the 20's and 30's was far from unopposed. It was their very willingness to use “any means” that gave the Kodo movement the edge over the majority they needed to take control of the government pre-WWII. JUST LIKE ISLAMIST DO.

    Instead our opening volley was food drops to our enemy.

    No, to a people shackled by the Taliban who welcomed our troops as liberators, until we ignored them to attack Iraq and started treating them like unwanted step-children. I have KNOWN former Mujahideen from the Soviet era. They are upset mostly at the betrayal of commitment AFTER the invasion, not at anything we did before 9/11.

    No country's government can sustain itself without the endorsement, or at least the acquiescence, of its people. It is the people of Afghanistan that attacked America and the attack was the product of their fundamental belief that no action in the name of Allah can be wrong.

    And just how is that NOT the same as saying that Islamists who had hijacked control of Afghanistan attacked the U.S. for Islamist reasons?

    In 1941 Japan was a country of such barbaric cruelty that it dwarfed the horrors of the Taliban. The Rape of Nanking was the single greatest atrocity in human history. The country responsible for it was caught in the most vicious philosophy ever generated in the Orient – militarist Shinto — in which no action committed in the name of the Emperor could be wrong.

    I am the last person to carry the bucket far to defend Japan from charges of racism but, I can’t go along with your black and white fantasy of all Japan being in thrall to Kodo in the same way that Islam is in thrall to the Islamists. The worst acts of the Japanese in WWII were not committed by common troops but by troops carefully vetted for reliability under orders and sympathy to “the cause”, just as like the German troops involved in the worst acts. The paternalistic German (and Japanese) cultures may have allowed the bad guys to get away with their crimes but, the average Wermacht soldier would have been (and letters and diaries show often WERE) disgusted at the actions of the “elite” Nazi troops. After the war was over many civilian Japanese could NOT believe that their troops had done the things they had. THey may have whitewashed them, they certainly did not endorse them!

    …The present policy is doomed because it will not fundamentally change Afghanistan the way the utter destruction of Japan and Germany led to the creation of two countries that today are among the most civilized places on earth.

    That is because Afghanistan is not an industrialized country with a homogenous culture and lacks a middle class, not to mention the VERY strong Afghan tradition of NOT following central authority.

    The biggest factor that allowed the reconstruction of Germany and Japan to be so complete is that once defeated each culture accepted the authority of the winner, as they have been programmed to do for hundreds of years.

    Even if we did knock over Kabul and take over with the support of a couple hundred thousand M.P.s do you really think that the people would accept that? Or would it just fuel a never ending insurgency like the Nazis faced in France? In WWII there was no doubt in any German or Japanes mind that they had started a war and had to win or lose. It is FAR from clear that such an attitude could ever be found in Afghanistan PRIOR to the American lapse in attention after the invasion. If the general Aghan does not feel “they” started or fought this war don't you think they might be a LITTLE put off if you send an FAB over their village as a way of “winning”? I don't think the actions of a corrupt government, that they have little control over in the first place, is reason enough to attack an entire people. I think it is a bit scary that you do.

    Until the philosophy behind the Taliban is discredited the problem of Afghanistan will remain intractable. That philosophy will end when it is completely defeated on the battlefield and the Afghan people made to pay dearly for adhering to it.

    You mean until we start using Soviet tactics? They completely defeated the Afghans on the battle field; they certainly made the people pay for not giving up. Yet they did not accomplish anything more than giving the Islamists of the Taliban the leverage they needed with the common Afghan to impose THEIR idea of a proper society.

    It is pretty clear that you have a great desire to strike back at someone, anyone in the Islamist camp, but do you really think firebombing civilians in Afghanistan will accomplish anything but giving you a vicarious thrill and making the U.S. as evil as the Soviets were?

  • http://twitter.com/HereticsCrusade Heretic Crusader

    There is a book called Rivethead from back in the Reagan era that shows Moore to have been a self absorbed fool more than 20 years ago. The author tried to not insult Moore since he had helped with his career, but it didn't come off as a very sincere effort. In fact I got the impression the the Rivethead would have prefered it if he had found a voice in a publication that Moore had NOT been editor of. The overall tone was of slightely affectionate contempt for the Great M.M.!
    And this from a man who refeered to a military truck contract with GM as “Death Wagons for Ronnie”! How low do you have to be for such a mind to look down on YOU?

  • Bellerophon

    Japan today is a civilized country although it has never admitted to the horrible crimes that it committed during WW II. Germany is even more civilized having been forced to acknowledge the horrors that it perpetrated. Afghanistan sees itself as the victim of betrayal, not as the perpetrator of terror. It is still the same brutal, uncivilized den of tribal religious lunatics that it has always been.

    The difference was that a confident America allowed the Japanese and the Germans no choice in their government, no choice of leaders, no choice of a ruling government philosophy.

    The US gave the control of Afghanistan over to people who chose the exact same type of leader that they had before. The only difference was that these leaders were willing to be bought off by the US.

    The nation itself is unchanged. Tribal loyalties and religious fanaticism are still the order of the day. It still sentences apostates to death with little if any complaint. Women are beaten in the streets if unaccompanied by men. They have Taliban lite, not liberty.

    You seem to believe that dictatorships oppose the will of the people. Dictatorships are the will of the people either in acquiescence or in support. It makes no practical difference. The Taliban was the soul of Afghanistan just as Nazism was the soul of Germany. To defeat the Taliban that soul must be destroyed.

    The “we will become the Soviets” is preposterous. The Soviets thought terror could work as it had in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. They failed because they could not stamp out all hope. It was the US that gave the Afghans hope and it was not us who betrayed the Afghans, it was they who betrayed us. You say we ignored them, but we merely let them go their own way. We neither helped nor hindered them. The rise of the Taliban was the inevitable result of the philosophy that ruled Afghanistan. Blaming the crimes of the Taliban on neglect is like blaming the crimes of the Nazis on the Versailles Treaty. It was the philosophy of the Nazis that killed 11 million people in the camps, not revenge for Versailles.

    I am talking of total defeat. There must be no hope left for the Afghans, no chance of returning to their usual ways of religious and tribal fanaticism. It was the complete hopelessness that brought Germany and Japan to their knees and ended the reign of their evil philosophies.

    A n evil philosophy can only be defeated by showing the impracticality of its ideas and that can only be demonstrated empirically by a crushing defeat. Rational argumentation is possible between reasonable people, it is pointless in dealing with those deranged by religious and tribal loyalties.

    If you believe that it is impossible to destroy all hope of the Afghans then the only alternative is to leave Afghanistan and admit that they defeated the US. The success of Islamic Fundamentalism will not be lost on the rest of the Islamic world. Bush's cowardly “apology” to the Chinese for their downing of a US plane over international waters was not lost on bin Laden. He knew weakness when he saw it.

    The real difference between Afghanistan and Nazi Germany isn't in the two countries, but in the United States. WW II was fought with both courage and confidence in the cause. The US apologized to no one for fire bombing Dresden which killed more people than either atomic bomb used against Japan. The war in Afghanistan is waged tentatively by an America that has lost confidence in its cause.

    This lack of confidence and the weakness it produces is readily apparent to the totalitarians of the world. They sit, patiently waiting for America to crumble, as it no doubt will.