Learning from the past

Neo-neocon has a justly famous series of posts on A mind is a difficult thing to change where she analyzes her conversion to neo-conservativism.

But the question I have is : why is our generation (neo and I are roughly contemporaries) so incredibly naive? Why isn't the experience of Neo more widespread? Have we completely lost the ability to deduce truth from events? Are we so committed to our beliefs that we can only interpret events such that they do not contradict those beliefs? This is the definition of faith. And a faith not revealed by a transcendent God.

I can accept the "Stop the lies/Stop the war" bumper stickers on cars at the local university. My ability to think critically (such as it is) has developed over years, so I would expect the same from students today. What I wonder at is the simplicity of the people my age who cannot, who will not take the words of our opponents at face value.

"War is a terrible thing." There are a lot of quotes by lots of famous people to that effect. But, sometimes war is inevitable; it's just a question of timing. The question is, of course, how do you know when war is inevitable? And, the other question is, "what if you're wrong?" And that question cuts both ways.

An Idle Thought

Now that the Iraq Study Group has released their report, does its findings supersede those of the 9/11 Commission?

Boilerplate

I would expect something like the following to be included in most of the emails.

Senator:

In your campaign you promoted the adoption of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission report. I have some questions. I have also posted these on my blog http://relativisticanalogs.blogspot.com.

The report states :

Caveats

I should remark first on my impressions on the 9/11 commission and their recommendations. In my first reading of the report, I was struck by the banality of the recommendations. My second reading was not much more favorable.

The biggest flaw in the recommendations is that there is no attempt to deal with Islam as a description of reality, that is, the possibility that Islam correctly defines the relationship between God and man. Thus the second set of recommendations becomes little more than an appeal to Muslims' better nature and an attempt to convince the umma that we really are good people and should just be left alone. The hope then is that by abiding by a "live and let live" policy, we will ultimately convince them of the benefits of Western tolerance and consumerism. And as we do that, we will essentially buy off the extremists as they see that life is better if they do things our way.

Of course, the flaw here is that the liberalization of Islam, the Westernization of Islam, the attempt to bring the values of the Western Enlightenment to Islam, is precisely what the Islamic extremists fear. It has been stated elsewhere that Islam considers the West corrupt, lewd, and faithless. The West has spent the last half century advertising its way of life through the popular media. We can argue that the reflection of the West in the popular media isn't truly reflective of the West. And that would be true. But because "bad guys" are much more entertaining than "good guys", because the spectacular events of the small fraction of criminals makes better ratings, and because sex sells, this is the image of the West. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

And the West IS faithless. It shows in the considerations made by the 9/11 commission. They are correct in their recommendations that we need to convince the terrorists that this approach is wrong. But they fail to recognize that "wrong" does not mean merely "not pragmatic". And they fail to see that because they no longer take seriously the idea that God is really there, God is really here. God, in the West, is a psychological construct to "get you through the night", necessary only for the weak. At its most generous, the culture might concede that all religions are just different paths to the One.

Because the commissioners do not take God seriously, there is no way to dispute the interpretation of the Koran. How can you argue that they're wrong, if a) this is just another way to the One or b) God is for weaklings ? And so, we're left with convincing the Islamists that we're OK and, if they won't be convinced, we'll just have to be patient until we've made heretics of them all.

Recommendation 1 : Handling terrorist sanctuaries

Recommendation: The U. S. government must identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. We should help reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help.

The section that this advice summarizes is titled "No Sanctuaries". It discusses the needs of a "complex terrorist operation aimed a launching a catastrophic attack" and lists the prime locations that a survey of knowledgeable officials thought met those needs.

Given our current situation in Iraq, it also mentions that "If, for example, Iraq becomes a failed state, it will go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for attacks against Americans at home".

So, what does this recommendation mean?

Are there other "potential terrorist sanctuaries" not mentioned in the 9/11 Report? What consideration is being given to how shifting demographics (see Mark Steyn America Alone) are changing the nature of who can (and will) help?

What is a "realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run"? How do we use "all elements of national power" to do that? What do we do to "reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help"? Especially, if those other countries decide that their helping is not one of their policy goals?

What compromises are we going to have to make to do "reach out, listen to, and work with"? Who do we think are most productive in this? What alliances will we have to forsake? At what point do we realize (that is, what are the objective criteria that establish) that no one is listening or willing to work with us? Are we willing to stand, as England did in 1940 and 1941, by ourself and assert our national right to exist, though a majority of the UN community decides otherwise?

In particular, a question I have is what makes anyone think that "responsible redeployment" in Iraq is NOT going to leave Iraq as a "failed state"?

Initial Purpose

In the 2006 election, the Senator in my state (Delaware) up for re-election (Tom Carper) claimed that he was for implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report. Since I had read the 9/11 commission report (twice now), I wanted to know what he thought "implementing the recommendations" meant. Especially now, I wonder how Mr Carper reconciles the recommendations with the current Democratic party positions.

I thought that I would review the commission's recommendations and send Sen Carper an email about them. One at a time. I will cross-post the email here and also post any non-trivial responses.

Though I will send Mr Carper my real name, I will not post it here. I wish to maintain some degree of anonymity. Yes, I am aware of the pluses and minuses of that approach. And, if one really wants to find out who I am, that probably won't be too hard.

Update : I had forgotten what a pain it is to communicate via email to our elected representatives. Since it seems most judicious to use the form provided by the Senator, I will be drafting the note here and posting it via his email page.