Thursday, December 01, 2005

Cabinet Wars

There are two types of wars - Wars of Necessity and Wars of Choice.

The Cold War and WWII were wars of necessity with no choice of intervening or not. Wars of necessity are fought to be won, they are the best kind of war. Capitalism versus Communism and Democracy versus Fascism both needed to be fought.

The War on Terror is a war of necessity. The invasion of Afghanistan has been part of the War on Terror, making a decisive attack against one of the enemies that sponsored fundamentalist Islam. The strikes on the World Trade Centre were part of the War on Terror, a small attack on those that would degrade Islam to a secular and merely private matter.

The War on Drugs and the Great War (WWI) were started as wars of choice (Cabinet Wars) that were entered into for advantage against competing interests. The War on Drugs remains a war of choice which is fought for the prohibitionists in America, but even if it is lost it will not threaten America. WWI mutated quickly into a battle for survival, with the loser doomed to be massivley defeated and even the winners to be degraded.

The War in Iraq was entered into as a war of choice, the invasion against Saddam and the Iraqi army was an action chosen by the cabinet. It was made for either profit (if you believe in $200 billion oil rights) or to protect us from Saddam's WMD (if you believe in Bush & Blair) . It has become part of the War on Terror, because our enemies have taken the opportunity to attack us there. It should be won because it will hurt our enemies if we forced them to give up (forced them to choose defeat). However it is still just a war or choice and winning or losing the Iraq war will not decide the War on Terror - just like victory in the Vietnam War failed to win the Cold War for the Soviets.

There are other wars of choice that the USA could engage in to fight fundamentalist Islam. Chechnya, Southern Phillipines, Kashmir and Israel all present opportunities to confront the armies of fundamentalism. These choices are mere diversions that appeal through our moral convictions of kinship and support for others fighting against fundamentalism, they are unimportant to overall victory or defeat. These wars should not be engaged in - they waste resources, tie down troops and weaken resolve to fight (as witnessed by the imminent withdrawl from Iraq).

The War on Terror needs to be taken to the source of fundamentalism for the West to win, it needs to be prosecuted against the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran. If the West were to do so the War could be over within 24 months.

To win their War on Terror the Islamofacists need to attack the heart of the West. They will continue attacks in America and Europe. They will continue to lobby, infiltrate local Muslim organisations and divert PC democracy to their ends. They will win within the next 50 years or the West will become facist in response and crush them there. Democarcy is dead if islamofacism is not crushed in Saudi and Iran.


At 7/12/05 10:23 AM , Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I agree that WWII and the Cold War are wars of necessity while WWI and the metaphorical wars (on Drugs, on Poverty, etc.) are wars of choice. However, where does that put Vietnam? Is it a war of necessity being part of the Cold War or war of choice being optional to win the Cold War?

Perhaps one should distinguish between war and battle. For example, was the invasion of Mussolini’s Italy (actually we invaded the Italian mainland one month after Mussolini fell) a war of choice, a battle in a necessary war, or an unnecessary battle in a necessary war? Some historians question the Mediterranean strategy pushed by Churchill. Indeed, we ultimately won by invading France (while Stalin pushed from the East.)

It may be that Iraq is an unnecessary battle in a necessary war – as the second front after Afghanistan; which may or may not have been the best strategic move. I think the battle/war distinction can help further clarify the matter and put things in proportion.

At 7/12/05 4:07 PM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

Good distinction.

I see Vietnam as a battle of the Cold War. A battle lost by America.

War is attacking who you want to fight or need to fight. How the fight is carried (tactics), which battles are fought (strategy), how much resource expended (logistics) are decisions to be made during the conflict. The tactics and strategy of war (good or poor) are important in winning or losing. But deciding what the conflict is about and who the enemy is crucial.

The aim of the War on Terror is to stop terorist attacks. But there are different ways to define the enemy. President Bush insists the enemy is a nefarious set of organisations that exist in isolation from any apparent base, but that can be fought in the muslim world. I see the enemy as the Saudi regime producing a supremacist Sunni islam that emphasises the neccesity of purifying the world of sub-perfect ideals. You* see the enemy as islam an unbending religion that requires jihad and encourages terrorism.

* This strawman is a gross slur upon the subtlety of your thoughts and possibly totally incorrect - but happily fits into one sentence.**

** President Bush if you are reading this same disclaimer applies to you.

At 8/12/05 1:39 AM , Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Banned from Jihad Watch? Was it arguing about war policy?

It's hard to know the "house rules" on any website. I haven't found any website, with a large audience, that has been able to keep a discussion within a range or focus. I delete posts - like the long ones from Abdullah - but I give a reason so that the preson can change if they want to join the discussion. I wonder if they are overwelmed ... perhaps they should monitor posts before they appear. Then, by trial-and-error you learn what is welcomed or not. But that takes a staff, too.

I don't completely agree with Hugh but I understand where he's coming from. I worry his comments depart from the main topic of the website: jihad watching. Policy making includes other dimensions aside from Islam - as you hinted above. But obviously, understanding Islam (and how they understand Islam) helps. It always helps to understand the enemy.

At 8/12/05 12:14 PM , Anonymous B.Poster said...

It also should be pointed out that Saddam's regime had ties to Islamic Extremists terrorists including Al Qaeda and provided active support for them. Sadly the evidence to support this has largely been suppressed by the main stream media. Of course while terrorists received active support from the former Iraqi regime, it could conceivably be argued that the support did not rise to the level to justify invasion of Iraq. If the main stream media would make this argument, I might attach some credibility to their arguments. Instead they have chosen to parrot the various "Bush lied" diatribes.

I agree that whether we win or lose in Iraq will not decide the final outcome, however, if we fail this means Islamic Extremists terrorists will gain control of Iraq. This will make final victory much more difficult. It is because of this that we must win.

At 8/12/05 1:02 PM , Blogger unaha-closp said...


Yes - war policy, they think allying with Israel is crucial to winning, I think Israel is in a territorial dispute not an anti-jihad war.

There was a Robert Spencer post that the enemies of Israel are the same enemies as America fights. And that backing Israel was important in the War on Terror. Then 2 or 3 posts later the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda for expanding jihad was laid out (from LGF) and one point was the MB want to make the Palestine conflict central to jihad. I suggested it was not good to give the enemy what they want with reference to the previous post.

Argument ensued, with me pointing out that Israel has several christian enemies amuong Palestinian refugees and christians are not in the jihad. Hugh pointing out that Islamists have forced christians out of Palestine and that several Arab christians live in Israel. I pointed out some restrictions that Christian Arabs have on their Israeli rights and that this constitutes a religious dhimmitude to Jews.

It degenerated from there - palestine doesn't exist, massacres, anti-semitism, Saudi Arabia is worse (only point of agreement) - I was banned for being an islamofacist christian.

I have now being banned from Democratic Undergorund, Australian News Talk Back and Jihad Watch - apart from the Aussie (who is, was and remains an idiot) it has been for speaking out of place.

PS - I do not know if I thanked you enough for your "pragmatic world" post, it has really been an eye opener as to how and why politics moves.

At 8/12/05 4:21 PM , Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Well, I don't always agree with everyone and generally let people "say their peace." After all, there's so much to talk about that it's best to have priorities. And besides, the reader can make-up their own minds.

Glad you enjoyed my posts. I get about 3% New Zealander visits and about 3% Aussie. It's time for me to sign off.

At 28/12/05 9:02 PM , Blogger Krishna109 said...

It seems to me that the terms "Viet Nam War" and "War in Iraq", the "Cold War", and "Korean War" are misnomers. Rather, each was a "front" in a larger war.

I think that we are now in WWIV:
-WWIII: This was a very long struggle between Communism and the Free World. It was fought on many fronts-- the "Hungarian" Revolution, for instance, or the "Korean War" were merely different fronts of this war.Also, for a long time the violent actions were minimal ("The Cold War")-- but we were still engaged in WWIII. There is still some Communism in the world-- but its really finished. (They Commies lost WWIII, we won :-)

WWIV: This si the struggle between militant Islam and, eventually-- everyone who doesn't want to live under Sharia!

Bush calls it the "War on Terror". This is absurd-- it is as if, right after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR declared that we were fighting a "War on Sneak Attacks"!

"Terrorism" & "Sneak Attacks" are tactics the enemy has used. We are fighting militant Islam-- nothing more, nothing less!

Though this war has many fronts its all the same war: Nigerian Muslims vs Christians (& any other non-Muslims), Muslim persecution of Copts in Egypt, Muslim atrocities vs Buddhists in Thailand, vs Hindus in Kashmir, Bengladesh and Pakistan, vs Christians in the Phillipines, Iraq, Chechnyan Muslims vs Russians. etc.

Wherever there is a group of Muslims, (when their numbers become great enough), they concoct a myth about a state- a Muslim country to be carved out of a larger, non-Muslim one-- Chechnya, Palestine, a Muslim Republic from S Thailand-- even one linking several Muslim Pacific areas including part of Australia (they don't mention that too often--they will wait 'till they have greater numbers...).By claiming they deserve a state, they make it seem "legitimate".

Israel is actually no different. (Its just that, after their unfortunate experience with Hitler in WWII, they now fight like demons when threatened with annihilation!!! Many people prefer them in their former role of helpless victims . . . )

There's no doubt in my mind they have a right to exist-- although its fair to debate how much land they should have, and where the boundaries should be. Currently they really do have a tiny litle parcel, about the size of the U.S. state of New Jersey. 2 maps:


(Note: These maps include Gaza, which Israel has given up, and the West Bank, part of which it will probably cede, so actually Israel is even tinier than these maps show.In addfition, the southern 2/3 of this tiny country is-- rocky desert!).

There is already in existance one Palestinian majority country, anyway... (as if anyone could actually believe that there is such a thing as a "Palestinian" identity).

Arab propaganda, true to form, claims its all about a "homeland" for Palestine, and all they want is two states living side by side in peace. Both are lies-- they could've already had a homeland if they stopped the terror. And-- they do NOT want 2 states-- they want a "Judenrein" ("Jew Free") mideast. Having a non-Moslem state there (even if they got a Pali state)is an abomination to the "militants"...

(Btw, a Christian majority Lebanon was also unacceptable, so they fought a long and bloody "Civil War". .. which, again, IMO wasn't about Lebanon but just another front in the battle to eliminate a non-Moslem state).

Well, don't want to get into a debate on Israel...its just a small part of the whole picture.

So, in my view, both the so-called "Lebanese Civil War" as well as the "Arab-Israeli conflict" are really part of the same larger struggle. Its really about militant Islam not accepting a non-Moslem country in their midst-- its not about land...and its not about terrorism..,nor is it really about Muslims having their own Chechnyan or Kashmiri, or Palestinian or Thai or Nigerian, or Phillipino state.

Its about the militants wanting to conquer the world and re-establish a "Caliphate"....and about everyone else slowly waking up to the fact that they don't want that!!

At 29/12/05 3:54 PM , Blogger unaha-closp said...

To gut fundamentalism you need to take out its guts. Hezbollah and Hamas could bve fought forever in Lebanon and Palestine, but short of ethnically cleansing on genociding the muslim population (taking the land) they cannot be defeated as long as they are paid to act by foriegn supporters. The foriegn supporters are the guts, and they are protected.

At 25/1/06 6:44 PM , Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

Angus, I won't ban you, I promise.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home