America Alone (v. 5)
Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone, isn’t a call for more war, more bombing, or more killing, but for more will. Herein follows a series of posts either highlight Steyn quotes, or listing current events which, indeed, indicate that America is alone in her fight against Islamic terror.
Re: the West’s rabid belief in pluralism and the fantasy of co-existence –
One Step Forward, Several Back, in Efforts to Define the Enemy, Counterterrorism Blog,
As my colleague Jeffrey Imm has recently noted, there has been a alarming few steps back in identifying the Salafist/jihadist threat we face in any way with a growing current of Islam.
The new threat assessment, the State of the Union, (as noted by Andrew Cochran here) both fail to mention Islamism by name.
Our government is not alone. The British government has has decided the Islamist radicals are now to be called criminals so Muslims won’t be offended.
and a consequence,
Chad’s Future Taliban enters capital while the West is asleep,
As Americans are debating who among their candidates for the primaries can best confront the Jihadists or at least preempt their offensives worldwide, future Jihadi forces have in one day invaded an African country (under European protection), a key location for the Darfur forthcoming Peace missions. In less than 12 hours the so-called armed opposition of Chad, crossed the entire country from its Eastern frontiers with Islamist-ruled Sudan to the capital N’Djamena across from Northern Nigeria. The latest reports mention fierce battles around the Presidential Palace and back and forth inside the city. But at this stage the geo-political consequences are crucial for the next stages locally, regionally and internationally. The bottom line is that in one day, what could become the future Taliban of Chad have scored a strategic victory not only against the Government of the country (which was supposed to back up the UN plans to save Darfur in Sudan) but also against the efforts by the African Union and European Union to contain the Sudanese regime and stop the Genocide.
[tags]al qaeda, america alone, aq, iran, iraq, islamic terror, islamist, jihad, mark steyn, multi-culturalism, radical islam[/tags]
Filed under: Culture • Islam • Religion • Rusty • War
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
On this topic, this demonstrates more than ever a need for a comprehensive Just Peace sort of program. Our current plan (or lack thereof) has very little in place to deal with burgeoning atrocities and what IS in place is random and haphazardly implemented.
We can’t have a military response to each and every situation like this. We don’t have a plan for a diplomatic response either. We need to implement plans, laws, rules, guidelines and procedures. Otherwise, this coup will happen in Africa, another coup will occur in S America only to be followed by a genocide or two in Africa, civil war in the middle east and on and on it goes and always later, we’ll say, “This should never happen again.”
And it happens again.
We need a plan.
OFF topic, did you see the latest on the fundy LDS group. CNN says:
A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn’t specify how many are pregnant.
“It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive,” he said.
Is that enough evidence that there’s a systemic problem in place here and that some action needs to be implemented, or do you still think it should be hands off in order to preserve “freedom of religion”?
Dan,
Read Collier’s The Bottom Billion. There is no singular “plan/solution” to these problems. In some cases military action is good, in others it is not, just as in some diplomatic pressure or economic assistance can be harmful or good.
We don’t need a plan. We need situational of plans and good analysis. Generic plans are exactly wrong.
I’m not talking about a single plan. I’m talking about having procedures in place to ensure we just don’t ignore Darfurs, Rwandas, etc, etc, etc until it’s too late.
We don’t have that in place, sufficiently. To the degree that we have anything in place, it’s largely a function of the UN, which is constantly being undermined by many, especially on the Right.
How ’bout this: I’ll read Collier’s stuff as soon as you read Stassen’s Just Peace, okay?
The UN is criticized by many on the Right, but (and because) it’s undermined by blocks of countries that refuse to allow anything to be done to their cronies. The tunnel-vision the UN has about issues with Israel, for example, is appalling when compared to the specific targeting of civilians done by the Palestinians. Hamas fires rockets daily into Israel, but the UN only wakes up to condemn someone when Israel fires back once.
Sorry, I don’t think the UN’s doing anything about true peacekeeping. It’s got an institutional agenda. It took George Bush to get the word “genocide” used in a UN deliberation on the Rwandan matter. If they can’t figure that much out, they’re pointless.
The best answer then is, what? The US to unilaterally say we’ll decide what’s right and what’s wrong? Who gets invaded and who doesn’t?
And since we refuse to be part of any World Court, we’ll just make it up on our best hunch? When we feel like it and want to and can afford to?
If not thru international bodies and rules and procedures, how?
Mark doesn’t even trust the gov’t to intervene here locally when girls under 16 are being forced to wed and have babies. If we can’t agree to put an end to that here in our own nation under our own laws, how will we achieve something better on the global stage?
And, if you all are calling for “America alone” to handle things, what’ll we do if the World and somewhere around half of America disagrees?
I think the title “America Alone” isn’t a call to something; more of an observation of the status quo (or its direction).
I think building coalitions like we did for Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (on the military side) and North Korea (on the diplomacy side) are a much better way to handle the world situations that we find rather than have a deliberative body do nothing but deliberate. Don’t take it up one level of bureaucracy where dictators and despots can band together and tie the place in knots.
If not that, then the idea of a League of Democracies seems far better.