Specific: "The war on terror began in earnest on 9/11.
Supporters of a radical Islamic ideology struck American on 9/11. The war on terror is not a fight against a tactic (as the name falsely suggests), but against that ideology. The appeal of an ideology ebbs and flows with perceptions of its success. Communism advanced in the third world after its victory in Vietnam. The Islamists would get a similar boost if they were to prevail in Iraq. "
Comment:The following I sent to the author of the editorial -
I sincerely wish to understand. But I'm confused.
Please do not assume my confusion with the rhetoric to be liberal.
Can you accept that your rhetoric might need some clarification?
Are you saying that the name of the war should be a "War on a Bin Laden Islamism"?
I can accept that the war began on 9/11.
I find a few things in conflict and appear paradoxical - can you untangle for me?
If the war is against the Bin Laden style Ideology of Islam
can you direct me to something that describes how this existed in Saddam's Iraq?
I can accept that there were some terrorists in Iraq before the war:
but then why didn't they hold a greater political stake in Iraq before the war?
Are the Sunni's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
Are the Shiite's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
Are the Kurd's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
If the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist were not these groups,
then does this not make them a low rate political power in Saddam Iraq?
I'm all in favor rooting out the bad guys no matter how long it takes.
I'm all in favor of take the battle to them before the battle is on American soil.
This suggest a perpetual state of war - which may be a good thing if it get the job done.
This suggest a War footing for at least several generations of Americans.
The American character will be changed forever.
Is this a good thing?
In the next generation or perhaps the generation after that,
will Americans in general be as tolerant of good flavors of Islam?
Is this a good thing to be intolerant?
And finally, you indicate that Communism advanced in the time after Vietnam.
Am I mistaken, but isn't Communism dead?
Did it not die within 15 years of the end of Vietnam?
Didn't Ronald Reagan win the Cold War?
If not then are we not still in the Cold War?
Perhaps I should be intolerant of editors that don't have the mental discipline and guts to reason.
Prove me wrong.
--------------------------------------------
Let's see if he/she replies...
