Go to: => TOP Page;   ROAD MAP;   Search Page;   What's New? Page;   Emmaus Ministries Page


Only choice on war is to win or lose it

BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist 

[COMMENT:  Mark Steyn's title is right about the war.  You do not fight a war half way.  Now that we are in the war, we must not desert those whom we have started down the road to...???  Well, it could be that the hint of freedom sparked by the war will lead somewhere.  That is all we can hope for in Iraq.  The intransigence of the Islamic terrorists will control the situation until the moderate Muslims stand up publicly and at risk to their lives against terrorism.   

But we Americans are fighting the wrong war.  We have no concept of (or are scared to death by the thought of) a Biblical foreign policy, and so are fighting for secular "liberal democracy", which is neither liberal nor democratic.  It does not set people free in any substantive way.  Look at Europe (see below) -- the paragon of "liberal democracy". 

The only way to preserve freedom is  under God.  There is no other way.  That is a logical fact -- because only under God is there any obligation for anything at all, any sort of moral or political obligation, right vs. wrong, and thus any sort of legitimacy, any sort of "rights".  Without God, the only thing left is power struggle. 

Mark Steyn is a good writer and assesses the problem accurately, but does not know the solution in depth. 

We should be fighting (spiritually) to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we hardly know how to present it in public right here in America, let alone in Iraq or China.  All military war is a subset of the wider and constant spiritual war (until Jesus returns), but we treat it as a "secular" thing and think that is "modern" and rational.  Only when the use of coercive force is brought under the law and grace of God will there be rational politics and a chance at peace.   That is what our Constitution was written for (see Declaration of Independence). 

When we learn how to present the Gospel of Jesus gracefully and reasonably, we will begin to win  --  and we will begin to be persecuted.  They (almost) always go together. 

My question for Bush is whether, or how much, he is controlled by globalists in the Iraq venture, and to what extent is the globalist crowd financing both sides of both the Iraq event and the terrorist insanity -- in order to control the outcome -- as per Hegel and Gramsci.  Is Bush "far sighted" as Steyn thinks below, or is Bush acting in concert with globalist strategy?     E. Fox]
 

Chicago Sun-Times
October 29, 2006

My caller at C-SPAN thought this Bush farsightedness shtick was ridiculous. And, though I did my best to lower her blood pressure, I can't honestly say I succeeded. But suppose the ''Anyone But Bush'' bumper-sticker set got their way; suppose he and Cheney and Rummy and all the minor supporting warmongers down to yours truly were suddenly vaporized in 20 seconds' time. What then?

Nothing, that's what. The jihad's still there. Kim Jong Il's still there. The Iranian nukes are still there. The slyer Islamist subversion from south-east Asia to the Balkans to northern England goes on, day after day after day. And one morning we'll switch on the TV and the smoke and flames will be on this side of the Atlantic, much to President Rodham's surprise. Bush hatred is silly and parochial and reductive: History is on the march and the anti-Bush crowd is holding the telescope the wrong way round.

"We're in this grand ideological struggle," said the president two days later. "I am in disbelief that people don't take these people seriously." He was sitting in the Oval Office with a handful of columnists including yours truly. At the risk of making that C-SPAN caller's head explode, it was a great honor. I wasn't the only foreigner in the room: There was a bust of Winston Churchill, along with those of Lincoln and Eisenhower. A war president, a war prime minister, a war general.

Bush was forceful and informed, and it seems to me he performs better in small groups of one-night-only White House correspondents than in the leaden electronic vaudeville with Helen Thomas, David Gregory and the other regulars. (You can judge for yourself: Michael Barone has posted the entire audio at U.S. News & World Report's Web site.) He dismissed the idea that going into Iraq had only served to "recruit" more terrorists to the cause. (General Pace told me last week that, if anything, the evidence is that Iraq has tied up a big chunk of senior jihadists who'd otherwise be blowing up Afghanistan and elsewhere.) The president's view is that before it was Iraq it was Israel; with these guys, it's always something. Sometimes it's East Timor -- which used to be the leftie cause du jour. And, riffing on the endless list of Islamist grievances, Bush concluded with an exasperated: "If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons." That'd make a great slogan: it encapsulates simultaneously the Islamists' inability to move on millennium-in millennium-out, plus their propensity for instant new "root causes," and their utter lack of proportion.

"We need to be on the offense all the time," said the president. I pointed out that, when the military are obviously on offense -- liberating Afghanistan, toppling Saddam -- the American people are behind them. But that it's hard to see where the offense is in what to most TV viewers has dwindled down to a thankless semi-colonial policing operation with no end in sight. How about a bit more offense? Syria's been subverting Iraq for three years. Why not return the favor?

"We are on the offense," he insisted, sounding sometimes as frustrated as us columnists that so much of the wider momentum had become (in Charles Krauthammer's words) "mired in diplomacy." Still, it was a different conversation than most Bush encounters with the media-political class. I happened to be plugging my book on a local radio show this week just as a Minnesota "conservative" (ish) Democrat joined the herd of stampeding donkeys explaining why they were now disowning their vote in favor of the Iraq war. What a sorry sight. It's not a question of whether you're "for" or "against" a war. Once you're in it, the choice is to win it or lose it. And, if you're arguing for what will look to most of the world like the latter option, you better understand what the consequences are. In this case, it would, in effect, end the American moment.

Does that bother people? Bush said something, en passant, that I brooded on all the way home. Asked about poll numbers, he said that 25 percent of the population are always against the war -- any war.

That sounds about right. And it's a bit disturbing. To be sure, if Canadian storm troopers were swarming across the 49th Parallel or Bahamian warships were firing off the coast of Florida, some of that 25 percent might change their mind, though it might be a bit late by then. But, as America's highly unlikely to be facing that kind of war in the foreseeable future, that 25 percent's objection to the only wars on offer is rather unnerving.

The invaluable Brussels Journal recently translated an interview with the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from the Belgian paper De Standaard. A Dutch gay "humanist" (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), van den Boogaard was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

[COMMENT:  (My "bold" emphasis above...)   America is only about 50-75 years behind the degradation of Europe.  Christians along with others are more in love with enjoying their freedom than capable of defending it. 

The only way to prevent our own downhill slide is the renewal of Western Civilization -- which means the recovery of our Biblical roots.  Nothing else is capable of a secure foundation which will not slide into oblivion, as all unGodly cultures do in the incessant vortex of world power struggle. 

The Way of the Cross is the only way to unite stability with freedom.  Both science and our Constitution are examples of the Way of the Cross.   Christians have had two chances (Rome and America) to bring that about, and each time we have gotten siphoned off into our own comfort zones.  I think we will have to go through another tragic plunge before we turn ourselves around so that we can be used again by the Lord to turn our culture around.

See Civil War Coming to Europe.    E. Fox] 

Too many of us are only good at enjoying freedom. That war-is-never-the-answer 25 percent are in essence saying that there's nothing about America worth fighting for, and that, ultimately, the continuation of their society is a bet on the kindness of strangers -- on the good-naturedness of Kim Jong Il and the mullahs and al-Qaida and what the president called "al-Qaida look-alikes and al-Qaida wannabes" and whatever nuclear combination thereof comes down the pike. Some of us don't reckon that's a good bet, and think America's arms-are-for-hugging crowd need to get real. Van den Boogaard's arms are likely to be doing rather less of their preferred form of hugging in the European twilight.

İMark Steyn 2006

(http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/114966,CST-EDT-steyn29.article)

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page Near East;   Politics;   Islam;   ROAD MAP