Or Maybe I'm Just Naive

Mr. Rumsfeld said in his speech to the American Legion –

“We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

• With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
• Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
• Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
• And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?

These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly.”

Mr. Rumsfeld, I agree, these are (some) of the central questions of our time.

So here’s honesty:

• Yes, we may not be able to appease them, as it is most often difficult to appease angry, young radicals. But we can put boundaries around them and limit their behavior, just as we do with any dangerous misbehavior. Social boundaries, economic boundaries, legal boundaries, political boundaries. We will only be successful if we do this in healthy harmony with the rest of the peace-loving world. World leaders, who work together at the community level, can influence communities, parents, families, and religious clerics to stop their young people from violence. And yes Mr. Rumsfeld we can use our military, in concert with other militaries, to enforce these boundaries. Always remembering that the military big stick is only one of the many big sticks available.
• Well, maybe negotiation will be an option once the boundaries are in place. Even hardened criminals sometimes get lesser punishments from the courts. Forgiveness can be a tool of peace.
• Yes we can view the threats today as a law enforcement problem. An international law enforcement problem. This view is certainly not a “luxury of pretending” nor is it simple. You are correct Mr. Rumsfeld; it is not a problem “like robbing a bank or stealing a car”. It is a problem of killing people and destroying stuff. Law enforcement works at the community level where the terrorists live. The local police, their ties to the community, are so vital in a community based solution. I wonder what Iraq would be like today if the Administration had not dismantled the Iraqi army. Many, many men lost thier jobs and were suddenly unemployed, unable to take care of their families. I know a lesson has been learned in that decision. It will take vision, leadership and wisdom. Yes, the threats are of "a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches“. But the use of our military is not a “different approach”. I speak of other “fundamentally different approaches” supported by military might. I do not hear the Administration speaking to this. I don't hear any of our leaders in this country speaking for a community solution for terrorism.
• Mr. Rumsfeld, please look around. America is a source of much of the problem. For so many decades since WW2 we have disrupted communities around the world. Much of it was good, such as bringing health and infrastructure to struggling people. Of course we are not THE “source of the world’s troubles”. We, this country of immigrants, are a role model. But I fear that our often brash and heavy handed ways have grown thin. Let’s create and not destroy. We are pushing many a young Muslim into the camps of the terrorists.

Or maybe I’m just naive.

Here is Mr. Rumfeld's speech to the American Legion

There Is No Moral Confusion Here, Mr. Rumsfeld!

Was it Theodore Roosevelt who said, “Walk softly and carry a big stick”?

America certainly has a big stick. A collegue, a former Army Chaplain, recently commented, “Our military is very good at killing and blowing stuff up”. Now, that’s not such a bad thing, having a big stick.

But a big stick, a military big stick, cannot alone stop a radical version of a peaceful religion. A military big stick held by Christians and Jews over Muslims and visa versa.

-- Talk about a family problem! --

Hitting folks with the big stick just makes the people angry and they send their young to stand up against it. Standing up against being hit becomes the objective and God is on their side against the Evil. What we are doing now breeds angry young men and women who want to kill us in the name of Allah.

In today’s world of so much anger and hurt, walking softly is what we need to learn and do. Joining across the world with others in peace to quell the anger.

Mr. Rumsfeld spoke of the "sentiment" of cynicism, moral confusion, and appeasement that struck the western democracies during the rise of Fascism. He argued that if we do not engage in war against the fascists of today, then we were acting the same as democracies did prior to WW2.

There is no cynicism here Mr. Rumsfeld. I am afraid. My children are afraid. My children's friends are afraid. We understand that angry young people who sincerely believe their radical religious cause is correct are..... very, very dangerous.

There is no moral confusion here Mr. Rumsfeld. We know right from wrong. We know it is wrong for angry, young people to kill and blow stuff up. We know it is wrong for their parents and religious leaders to allow this. We know this behavior is intolerable and must stop. Just as we now see that our own military actions are breeding angry, young, religious radicals.

There is no appeasement here Mr. Rumsfeld. The misbehavior must stop. It cannot be tolerated by the peace loving peoples of the world. We must come together, treading lightly with honesty and integrity, supporting peaceful ways for communities to put boundaries and common sense around dangerous, radical, religious behavior. And, of course, there is always the big stick, looming in the background. A big stick that with a bit of common sense and vision can take on many forms in partnership with other peace loving peoples.

It’s always important to carry a big stick when you are putting boundaries around someone who demands that you join their cause or die.

Here is Mr. Rumfeld's speech to the American Legion

Radical Islamic Terrorists Are Not Fascists

Mr. Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion has solidified my thoughts of how the Administration has no understanding of radical Islamic terrorists.

Fascism is defined as:

"a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism." (Wikopedia)

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." (Mirriam-Webster Online)

For a time it sounded appropriate to call the terrorists Fascists. It appears to be common sense that a nation run by a radical religion would meet the above definition, which is why America's founders separated religion from state.

Fascism is not about religion. ((Well, now that I reflect, fascism may be about religion if one considers the Fuehrer's interest in the satanic arts and finding the Ark Of Covenant or the Holy Grail)). Fascism is not about God and peace.

Islam is about God and about peace.
Christianity is about God and about peace.
Judaism is about God and about peace.
And.....And 2 of the 3 have a radical religious side. The Crusades.......

Radical Islam is a religion and the Administration does not understand this.

As Mr. Rumsfeld reminded the American Legion; we stood up against the fascists of the past and we won. This is correct, we could fight the fascists of the past because they were dictators over nations and they controlled armies. And the fascist dictators designed uniforms for their armies to wear.

Radical Islamic terrorists have no nations as the fascists had. Terrorist groups may be secretly or openly sponsored by nations, but this is different from a fascist nation. Radical Islam's armies are spread in cells over many nations. Their leaders are not best described as dictators. And their soldiers have no uniforms.

They praise Allah and believe they know what Allah's wishes are.

If the world did succumb to radical Islam, it would be a Theocracy, not a fascist dictatorship. Imams or Ayatollahs would lead radical Islamic theocracies. Or the government could be in the form of an Islamic Republic, such as found in Iran. Like in a democracy, the people vote for a president and legislators, but the candidates are named by religious clerics.

They praise Allah and believe they know what Allah's wishes are.

No, the radical Islamic terrorists are not fascists. They are dangerous religious crusaders.

So, what to do?

Here is Mr. Rumfeld's speech to the American Legion