e78e29aa0346ba9cbb63…

Two basic solutions:
1. Destroy their social cohesion, i.e. destroy Islam, and assimilate them
2. Increase our own social cohesion and expel the foreign population, which might not be possible within the confines of liberal democracy

GermanAtheist on April 7, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Liberal Democracies have been capable of whatever brutality needed to be done to survive. Why can’t we now? I’ll just say point blank that I think we need more brutality, more cruelty, more evil in the Western Democracies if we are to survive. And even with our bruality, our cruelty, our evil the world will be overall much less brutal, much less cruel much less evil, than the alternative.

We had also shown that we did not differentiate between the people of that country

And what is your definition of terrorism?

My point:

There are terrorists/guerillas left over when you fight wars. Your choice is to fight until you win, or to pander until you lose.

I choose to win…more so since I believe in this fight. We have alot to lose in Iraq, and they’re finally choosing their country over their sect. This is a true turnaround moment for them, and I’m all in. Still. Have been since 2003. Why walk away now?

Miss_Anthrope on April 7, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Bush tried from 2003 to pander instead of fight, and let them have their Islam based constitution.

After the 2006 election drubbing he decided that it might be a good idea to fight rather than try to show the Iraqis how nice we are and how we are going to “stay the course” and sacrifice our best and brightest in some kind of good will campaign.

McCain was critical of the “kinder and gentler” Bush warfare all along, which earned him a lot of enmity from lots of quarters, but he was right.

It’s one reason I’m OK with his getting the GOP nomination even though I hate, hate, hate his immigration stance. McCain understands that you don’t send the US military somewhere to make a political statement…you send them to fight and accomplish something.

It has been excruciating for me to watch Bush’s rhetorical failure.

Ditto here. And this rhetorical failure was present even before the invasion. I’m not sure how much of it was that the President doesn’t have the skill or patience for it, how much of it was that the faulty popular narrative (”Saddam knew”) suited his purposes, and how much of it was thinking that the press wouldn’t allow for a clear delineation of the reasons behind U.S. actions on Iraq. The way everything was handled, from Bush’s rhetorical incompetence to Rumsfeld’s horrid execution, made things much worse than they needed to be.

BL@KBIRD on April 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM

In order to pacify a conquered population one needs to take away whatever unifies and empowers them. National Socialism, Statism/State Shinto and Islam are ideologies which serve these purposes and it is sensible to target them.

The same goes for immigrant populations. Our atomized social structure, caused by individualist liberal democracy, does not respond well to a sizeable group of foreigners with superior social cohesion.

Two basic solutions:
1. Destroy their social cohesion, i.e. destroy Islam, and assimilate them
2. Increase our own social cohesion and expel the foreign population, which might not be possible within the confines of liberal democracy

yeah, that’s it.

But we can’t defeat Islam entirely. I like BL@KBIRD’s suggestions too, be we can’t stop buying oil from the Middle East without destroying our economy. Unless, of course, we begin to tap into our own resources, which it doesn’t look like we are going to do any time soon, at least not until we get serious about defeating terrorism.

I’m also not convinced that our Middle Eastern enemies would just “go quietly into that good night.” From Hell’s heart they would stab at us, with their dying breath they would spit at us. I hope we would be prepared to deal with whatever from that new and even more desperate threat took.

If you believe that your nation is fundamentally evil and corrupt, you cannot believe that its endeavors will produce good results. Such is the case with the far left, and so they will never be persuaded.

It will be interesting to see what history has to say about this conflict.

BL@KBIRD on April 7, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Thank God. At least somebody on this site gets it.

Post-war Japan wasn’t allowed to create it’s own government the way Iraq is doing now. To the best of my knowledge, General Douglas MacArthur was given unilateral control of Japan. He helped create and approved their new constitution and pretty much told them what kind of government they were going to have. He approved or wrote laws and pretty much acted as a benevolent dictator until he was replaced by General Ridgway who did much the same thing. Does anyone really think that it was Japan’s idea to ban itself from having a military?

There were no politics or power-playing to worry about. If there had been an “uprising,” MacArthur would have crushed it. Simple. We thrust democracy and civility on them and it stuck.

http://www.dianawest.net/BlogArchive/tabid/56/EntryID/138/Default.aspx

You people just don’t get it.

Okay… I’d kill for sauerkraut, but I don’t know if I’d die for it.

I’m not certain how historically accurate the “Werwolf” meme is. I know that they existed, I’m just not clear on whether they were as active as some would have us believe. They have been discussed quite a bit in recent years and used as a way of showing that we faced the same problems in Germany after WWII that we are now in Iraq and emerged victorious. I’m afraid that the tales may have grown in the telling. For what it’s worth, here’s the Wikipedia article on them. It appears to be well sourced.

Now for my own Iraq War/post WWII comparison:

Post-war Japan wasn’t allowed to create it’s own government the way Iraq is doing now. To the best of my knowledge, General Douglas MacArthur was given unilateral control of Japan. He helped create and approved their new constitution and pretty much told them what kind of government they were going to have. He approved or wrote laws and pretty much acted as a benevolent dictator until he was replaced by General Ridgway who did much the same thing. Does anyone really think that it was Japan’s idea to ban itself from having a military?

There were no politics or power-playing to worry about. If there had been an “uprising,” MacArthur would have crushed it. Simple. We thrust democracy and civility on them and it stuck.

Memories: Post-war Germany took a decade of occupation

A decade???????????

Aren’t we still there????????

He missed a chance to visit Paris on leave. He would have been the only officer on that transport. He knew he would be responsible for the behavior of every man there, who were unlikely to visit “the city of lights” for its monuments.

Fortunately, Dad found a sympathetic American couple, and he spent his leave time with them touring the German countryside, as well as that of Switzerland and the Netherlands. As I child I remember his slide shows, portraying beautiful color scenes of the mountains, the tulips, and the marketplaces, with life returning to normal. It was a rare opportunity for a young man to broaden his horizons, before returning to the States and starting a family. Now 82, he was never able to return. But he has his memories, and we have his slide show.

GarandFan on April 7, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Good point, but it went a bit deeper.

Remember, we had Nuked Japan (TWICE) and leveled cities such as Dresden. We had shown not just our power, but our willingness to use it to the populaces of both countries. We had also shown that we did not differentiate between the people of that country, and the country, as we do now.

Governments are made up of PEOPLE. The leaders of said governments won’t go to war, or get frisky, if the ones they love are at risk. By minimizing damage to our enemies, we make it MORE likely for the leaders to do things against us, as their “innocent” families are not threatened (as they threaten ours).

Same with movements. If you face an overwhelming force, but your opponent will not use it… why not attack?

German’s and Japanese Post WWII knew we both had the power, and the will to use it… Iraq/Iran is not convinced of such.

Miss_Anthrope on April 7, 2008 at 11:10 AM

I just want to thank you for bringing up the interesting subject of the werewolves and how we treated them. I believe you think that there was no better choice than brutality in some past situations, and that is no better choice than brutality in some situations today. If so, I agree with you. The world is harsher place than the fantasies of human rights activists.

My Godfather was Ike’s G2 during the Great WWII. He would relate may stories of the difficulties that came after the fighting stopped.

I remember that Tony Snow clip from his Sunday show, good stuff. Thanks.

Muswell Hillbilly on April 7, 2008 at 10:37 AM

You are correct in the difference between the races mentioned, but my point concerned the fear of communism which drove the policies of the occupying powers in Germany and Japan – free of interference from the likes of the ACLU and other “bleeding hearts” which cause so much trouble today. Iraq is different in that a political wave is not apparent, but a fractured religious one is all to evident, and we cannot stop it without instituting a dictatorial empire upon them. Ultimately, it is up to the people of Iraq to find their own destiny – after doing away with the various contrary forces.
Of note, is the fact that the anti-Nazi law made even mention of Nazism a crime, but it only stifled opinion. Opinion remained in the minds of many Germans, and could well rise again if circumstances allowed.

Jessica’s Well first discovered the John Dos Passos commentaries in 1946 and blogged about it a few years ago in relation to Iraq

…at a time when they were more believable. While we can learn a bit about what’s going on now by what went on then, it’s a whole new ballgame. Heck, we even played it differently: We let Iraqis vote for their leadership faster than in countries formerly part of the German and Japanese empires, some of which remained U.S.-backed non-democracies for decades, our deciding in most cases that rebuilding the country was more important than giving citizens a vote. Perhaps we should have done that in Iraq. Perhaps we should have put more boots on the ground, as in WWII. Or perhaps these are completely different situations, and, although one huge mistake our leadership made was to refuse to learn from history, it would be a mistake to try to parallel vastly different situations now, the same mistake the Democrats are making by calling Iraq “Vietnam.”

Two things about the ‘werewolves’ post WWII. 1. The military forbade any press coverage of werewolf attacks on allied personnel or installations. 2. Those werewolves captured alive were summarily executed by firing squad.

Neither of those tactics are politically correct today.

I used that quote as an intro because David Stafford of the WaPo does a comparative analysis of Iraq and post-war Germany. The question asked:
So what did the United States do right 60 years ago that it has — so far — failed to accomplish …

In the ME we might as well be on Mars.

Limerick on April 7, 2008 at 11:33 AM

I have done the psychoanalysis of both Martians and Muslims and trust me when I say that Mars would be much easier. The Martians are actually much more like Germans, just a few shades greener, than they are like Muslims. Pretty good beer and cigars too.