Sunday, August 11, 2002

Islamist versus Islam, Containment, and Saddam’s Cubs

A good article explaining broadly what should be a commonly held distinction about Islam and our enemies who follow a particular brand of Islam. I am loath to punish Saudi Arabia too much lest we push them to become our enemy. We must push them to halt their subsidy of Wahhabi extremists but we shouldn’t count them as enemies because they disagree with our policies. If that’s our approach, let’s start with redefining France’s relationship with us. Saudi Arabia may not want to let us use bases to attack Iraq, but France wouldn’t even let us fly across their country (in 1986, I believe) to attack Libya! Let’s not even start on their pro-Serb attitudes and how much we can trust them with war plans.

Drawing a difference between Islamist enemies and Islam does not mean we ignore what Islamic countries do that may harm us. Just use reasonable means to push them at a pace that is sustainable. The big picture is the strategy. Vary the tactics to suit the circumstances.

Also, a couple senators argue for containment in an article today. I am still not convinced that containment is meaningful in regard to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

While I’m going at this, another reason we need to get rid of that psychopath, Saddam Hussein. He has perverted childhood with his own Hitler Youth, which he calls "Saddam’s Cubs." He has them training on weapons and is indoctrinating them with Islamist fervor to fight. Leaving aside the obvious damage to the children themselves, what has he done to the parents by having them send their children off like this? I can’t imagine they did this willingly. They had to send them off, proclaim their pride publicly, and cry in their shame at night, perhaps afraid to even speak their fears to their family. I have no doubt he would throw the cubs in front of our troops in a vain effort to save his own sick hide. Just how do we contain this? Why would we want to? I can understand wanting to debate what to do about Saddam Hussein. It is even just possible that those opposing an invasion are right that it is not in our interest to attack. But just how did the "pacifists" acquire the moral high ground in this debate?