Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Establishing a Deterrent

Neither political party has offered a vision of America’s involvement in the world. The debate has degenerated into a case-by-case analysis of isolated actions—events of the day—with no guiding principles or coherent policy. Symptomatic of this impoverished debate is a total lack of discussion on establishing a deterrent against foreign attacks. One of the most important roles of military policy is not only to fight wars but to maintain a posture to insure our safety via a powerful deterrent.

Establishing a deterrent takes more than creating a strong military. A military is worthless if our enemy doesn’t believe we will use it in retaliation to destroy all that our enemy values. Few fear America’s might today because we are afraid to use it. The Paper Tiger image emboldened jihadists after they attacked us for a decade with little more than a half-hearted response. After the Islamic attack of September 11th, Americans demanded a response. But to respond effectively one has to identify the enemy, expose their aims, and understand their motivation; something both political parties failed to do.

The prevailing view is that the enemy can’t be stopped with a deterrent because they are willing to die. This, of course, is enemy propaganda meant to project an image of invincibility and demoralize our efforts. Islam is not a spiritual religion in origin; it is a land-grabbing imperialist warrior religion that appended a spiritual component to strengthen its fighting capacity. The obsession with land is apparent today and dramatized by the fury over losing a sliver of real estate in the West Bank from land that stretches from Morocco to the Pacific Rim broken mainly by India. But India, too, is seen as lost territory from past Islamic rule.

The strength of the Islamic religion comes from without not within. Winning battles, extending the domain of Islamic rule, and humiliating the infidel invigorate the religion. After the Islamic attack of September 11th, bin Laden remained one of the top three admired Islamic figures by the vast majority of Muslims for years according to the Pew Research Center. But losing control of Afghanistan and Iraq was a major blow to the Islamic psyche. Islam, remember, is about land control and domination. Successfully waging war and conquering others are signs from Allah. Moses never made it to the Promised Land and Jesus never ruled. Mohammad slaughtered and conquered.

The euphoria after September 11th didn’t last. The Pew polls show that bin Laden is losing his popularity. His plan backfired after we easily gained control of two nations and surrounded a third poised to attack. Today it is common to hear Arabs talk about how 9/11 was a Zionist plot and an excuse to steal Muslim land. This is an admission that 9/11 was a failure resulting in the loss of control to a foreign power of what was once the heart of the Caliphate: Baghdad.

While the battles of Afghanistan and Iraq help to re-establish a deterrent, many Muslims rightly believe our resolve won’t last. While they boast of their willingness to die for their cause, it is their ability to kill for their cause that creates the threat to our civilization. Our problem isn’t a willingness to risk our lives but a difficulty risking their lives. Unlike them we have a hard time killing our foes. Instead we hold back and append each military action with a humanitarian nations-building campaign. It took less than 200 fatalities to remove Saddam from power but over 2000 to try to create a better society for those who we hope will someday thank us. Let’s remember that Israel has been waiting for 60 years to be accepted by her neighbors.

During the last 50 years we too have sought to win the “hearts and minds” of the Islamic world by taking Nasser’s side in the Suez Crises, helping Egypt get back the Sinai from Israel, coming to the rescue of Muslims in the Balkans, helping the Afghans fight the Soviets, coming to the aid of Kuwaitis, protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam, etc. We so much wish to avoid killing our enemy that we dropped food behind enemy lines during the first few weeks of the Afghan war. And we’ve supported the Palestinians for 50 years directly or through the United Nations. Even today we are searching for loopholes to send aid to the supporters of Hamas in the West Bank.

Hasn’t anyone noticed our generosity has backfired? In a warrior culture, generosity is seen as a weakness. If anything, appeasement isn’t a deterrent but an inflammatory accelerant. A deterrent isn’t established by our willingness to help our enemies but our willingness to kill our enemies. The reason we are at war today is because we have failed to establish a deterrent. To do so now requires a prompt show of force to deal with today's threats. Credibility requires a clear policy and a certain response. Unfortunately, our clarity has dissipated and our resolve has eroded.

“We must be better than them” seems to be the cliché heard on the left and too often on the right. War isn’t about “being better”—it’s about survival. Although the notion of "better" divorced from survival is suspect on the face of it. It’s not how you play the game—it isn’t a game—it’s about winning. This war won’t be won until the enemy fears losing their family, village, tribe, and, above all, their land. It won’t be won until they are asking how they can win our “hearts and minds.” But not only are we afraid to kill, we are guilt ridden if they suffer or die of their own failure. The “humanitarian” aid to the Palestinians is a case in point as is the left’s call to come to the rescue of those in Darfur. We can’t kick the altruist habit.

It is important that we do not help in Darfur. If they are to understand the contempt we have, or should have, we need to make it clear by our refusal to help them long before we have to fight them. But there is another reason. If we are to reform our foreign policy to a defensive posture, we not only need to fight the threats we face today but we must reframe from involvements when there is no perceived threat. If we are to embody the policy “we will fight you if you threaten us” we have to also embody the policy “we will leave you alone if you don’t.” Both are required to establish a policy of deterrence. Yet, today we are in Haiti, Serbia, Liberia, Columbia, and soon the Sudan. President Clinton sent our military into 34 conflicts—more than any previous President. We have lost our focus and purpose long before the current administration.

Muslims aren't going to abandon Islam—at least any time soon. They will continue to embrace the principle of jihad. However, they may decide that it isn’t prudent to act on that principle. That is part of establishing a deterrent. In the long-run they may question their religion and marginalize it as the Turks did in the 1920s. However, there will be no long-run for civilization if we do not insure our security today. We must fight today's battles if we are to discourage tomorrow's. But with every act of appeasement, with every act of groveling to win their "hearts and minds," and every time we hold back from vanquishing the enemy, we undercut every brave man and woman who has fought the enemy on the battle field. We can win the battles but we will lose the war without the proper leadership that can define a proper course, champion our righteousness, and demonstrate our resolve.

These are my current thoughts on defense. The floor is open for discussion!

29 Comments:

Blogger beakerkin said...

Jason

When you get a chance visit American Crusader. His health has taken a turn for the worse.

The problem is that in the West we have our own Colonial death cult called Marxism. Its accolytes readily side with our enemies .The question should be do people like Ducky and John Brown have a right to remain in the United States.

The answer is that people who are advocates for any system that seeks or encourages the violent overthrow of the USA should be stripped of citizenship and deported.A democracy depends on a set of shared values and Marxists like Ducky are outside that set.

Moreover a great and tragic mistake happened at the end of the Cold War. The United States made a serious error by not using the Soviet archives and placing Soviet agents on trial. Communist party USA was directly funded and subservient to Moscow. However in the glow of Communisms death rattle we forgot clean our own house of traitors.

Ducky sees no problem with terrorists teaching in our Universities. Ayers and Dorn belong pushing up daisies for their acts of sedition against the USA. The Duck will rattle off excuse after excuse. However do not be fooled Marxism with a smile is still genocidal.

Mr Beamish in 08.

5/13/06, 8:27 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I don't agree that advocates of communism or Islam should be deported. They should be refuted. However, acting on those subversive beliefs and trying to overthrow our government to establish a tyranny are grounds for criminal action or deportation.

5/13/06, 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is important that we do not help in Darfur."?! Let the jihadis commit genocide in Sudan?! Maybe we should not bother any of the Muslim dictators by your logic.

5/13/06, 9:58 AM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

Jason
The reality is that Communism is not a legitamate political viewpoint. The history of subversion and treason are not my opinion but historical facts. Marxists have established probable cause for survielence and deportation if cause is established.

Who said anything about deporting Muslims. People who advocate the violent overthrow of the US government should be deported. Why should we allow the Duck to enjoy the fruits of a system he is sworn to overthrow ?

Ducky should be on the first plane to Caracas.

5/13/06, 10:27 AM  
Blogger Weingarten said...

Jason has written another insightful and important article. The title itself “Establishing a Deterrent” focuses on what is of central importance, yet consistently disregarded. He mentions that our “prevailing view is that the enemy can’t be stopped with a deterrent because they are willing to die.” Here Jason points out why this is not so. I might add that the Muslims are very sensitive to having their agenda set back. That may care little about losing many lives, but they do care about losing territory, privileges, and legitimacy. More significant is that they care about honor. How would they feel for example, at having pig fat sprayed on the Kaaba? Personally, rather than kill bin Laden, I would have him undergo a sex change operation, and return him to his tribe, so they could stop using camels.

Next, Jason states “The strength of the Islamic religion comes from without not within… Our problem isn’t a willingness to risk our lives but a difficulty risking their lives.” Thus our problem in dealing with them is not their homicide, but our suicide. As he writes “Hasn’t anyone noticed our generosity has backfired? In a warrior culture, generosity is seen as a weakness. If anything, appeasement isn’t a deterrent but an inflammatory accelerant. A deterrent isn’t established by our willingness to help our enemies but our willingness to kill our enemies.”

On second thought, why read my comments, when it is more fruitful to reread Jason's.

5/13/06, 10:57 AM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

The purpose of America's participation in the global war on terrorism (as fought by Americans so far in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and the Phillipines) has been to engender the idea that backing terrorists that attack the United States will result in the United States bringing warfare to the doorsteps of the offending governments.

President Bush's efforts to expand democratic reform has softened the approach a bit (the ol' stick-and-carrot routine) but it may be time to change the old dynamic a bit. We have to stop seeing ourselves as responsible for non-American livelihoods.

This has some overlap with other issues (immigration, trade, etc.) but the fact is roughly 80% of the world's food supply comes from America's agricultural and livestock sectors. The Soviet Union under Communism lasted as long as it did because American generosity kept the Russians from starving themselves completely to death in the perennially fruitless quest to make Marxism applicable to reality.

It's our food. Stop giving it away.

5/13/06, 5:31 PM  
Blogger Cubed © said...

Jason, I hate this kind of economy of expression, where every sentence is something I want to respond to. I can't pick any one thing.

Lemme see.... Ah. Here:

"Neither political party has offered a vision...

Yeah, both the parties are, more than ever, opposite sides of the same coin. The experiences of generation after generation of children in our schools, which began to fall under the influence of the postmodernists around 150 years ago, has had its expected effect, and by now, there is very little opposition by anyone to the postmodernist views. Our population has basically become a rubber stamp for the government.

And because of the postmodernist form of education, our kids no longer think in terms of "guiding principles," so all they can see any more is unintegrated "isolated actions."

It looks a lot as if we're in a time warp, back in pre-Aristotelian times, before the Law of Causality had been identified, when nothing seemed to be related to anything else.

And re: "vision"... do you remember Papa Bush, and the time when one of his aides brought up the suggestion that he state his vision for the future of the country? He just looked blank, like a deer in the headlights, and asked, "What's the 'vision' thing?"

We treat the enemy (which, in the great progressive tradition, we refuse to name for fear of offending his sensibilities) very much the way progressive parents treat their two-year-olds; when the kids are throwing temper tantrums, the parents try to "reason" with them, and we are doing the same with Muslims (who bear an uncanny resemblance to pissed off two-year-olds) when we try to "negotiate" or "appease" them. Like two-year-olds who throw temper tantrums every time they want something from their progressive parents, they get it, so they keep doing what they're doing.

Hey, why not? It works, doesn't it?

Have you heard of Victor Mordecai? That's the pseudonym of an Israeli author who understands Islam very well. His wife is an Eyptian-born Jew who is fluent in Arabic, and who keeps up with what's going on in Muslim circles.

Mordecai maintains that, thanks to the Muslim idea of "self-esteem" (they think it is what others think of you, which in turn, is based on concretes, such as whether you seem physically strong, and NOT the reputation that you earn with yourself because of your own competence), if we dropped a few of the big ones on the major Muslim religious structures all around Islamia (and I, personally, would enjoy seeing a bunker buster dropped down that stupid well south of Tehran, the one that the Mahdi is scheduled to climb out of), that there would be a wholesale desertion of Allah to other gods.

Muslims are hopelessly out of touch. Theirs is the most intensely narcissistic culture that I have ever seen. Of course, two-year-olds are narcissists, but then, they outgrow it - unless they're Muslims; their narcissism is engraved in stone. Their exposure to the stultifying effects of Islam has gone on too long.

That's why they are so wedded to conspiracy theories as a means of explaining (to themselves) why they are the utter failures in the world community that they are.

After all, it is forbidden to question the validity of Islam per se - to do so would, after all, be to question the validity of Allah himself - so there is little else they CAN blame it on except the conspiracies of "Others" to oppress them. Read that: "Jews" (and their Christian puppets).

In your last comment, you said, "We can win the battles but we will lose the war without the proper leadership that can define a proper course, champion our righteousness, and demonstrate our resolve."

So true. But I seriously doubt that the Republicrats will ever allow the nomination of a candidate that will do all those things. It may very well take a candidate who shares our concerns and understands what it takes to win the war to step forward and say, "Hey, I'm here, let's form a REAL "second party" that opposes the Republicrats, and get on with it!"

I think there are enough of us who are pissed off at being sold down the river by these jokers that if such a person stepped forward, there are enough of us who would support him that we could put him into the Oval Office.

5/13/06, 9:13 PM  
Blogger LASunsett said...

Jason,

In a warrior culture, generosity is seen as a weakness. If anything, appeasement isn’t a deterrent but an inflammatory accelerant.

No imperialist tyrannical force in history has ever responded favorably to appeasment. It may have bought some time, but the thing always came to a head, sooner or later.

I cannot for the life of me, believe that there are people that do not see Hitler's reign of terror as a model, of what's happening, right now. The parallels are utterly amazing and this phrase of yours that I highlighted, bears this out.

5/13/06, 10:17 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
Muslims aren't going to abandon Islam—at least any time soon. They will continue to embrace the principle of jihad. However, they may decide that it isn’t prudent to act on that principle. That is part of establishing a deterrent.

And unflinching resolve is needed on the part of the West. I don't see that resolve present right now. I've heard that we're now going to give humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people--this will backfire, and it won't take long. We'll be funding suicide bombers; after all, the election of Hamas to political power occurred through the democratic process.

5/13/06, 10:58 PM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

It's been over a millenia since the ancestors of the French gave silver to Viking raiders to bribe them not to attack (thus encouraging Viking raids for silver in France) and the appeasement idea still persists.

Maybe its not a bad dynamic. Who's for forcing the world to seek to appease America?

5/14/06, 3:10 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Thanks, Allen and Cubed. It’s clear you both understood what I said and what I didn’t say but was thinking! And you both touched on the same point. Cubed noted how Arab culture is obsessed with self-esteem as appearance to others which is their screwed notion of honor (as Allen W. pointed out.) AOW & I talked about this before. And I think Cubed wrote about this (you've written so much.)

I was thinking of writing about this (couldn’t fit it into this piece) since it is so interesting and we are doing everything backwards by trying to help sustain the façade of honor when some humiliation is in order. Actually, I did talk about it briefly because Ali Sina also suggested we take a moral stance and vocally condemn this ideology. This is another place where they are vulnerable. But our leaders keep praising their culture and religion in hopes that they’ll change to the moderate image of them that we (some of us) have in our minds. But just like telling a child they are wonderful despite having to behave, it doesn’t work (as Cubed pointed out.)

Beamish raises the interesting point: why aren’t they appeasing us? Or as I said in the article, why aren’t they worried about winning our “hearts and minds?” After all, we are the superpower. Their media should be pained by the question: “why do they hate us?” Oh, that’s right, we (Karen Hughes) keeps assuring them that we love everything about them. Back to Ali Sina’s insight …

5/14/06, 7:55 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
During the last 50 years we too have sought to win the “hearts and minds” of the Islamic world...

Hasn’t anyone noticed our generosity has backfired? In a warrior culture, generosity is seen as a weakness. If anything, appeasement isn’t a deterrent but an inflammatory accelerant. A deterrent isn’t established by our willingness to help our enemies but our willingness to kill our enemies. The reason we are at war today is because we have failed to establish a deterrent.


At the Symposium, Walid Shoebat out and out stated that we are taking a dangerous tack by trying to reach the hearts and minds of Muslims, in particular the jihadists. His position is that the brainwashing has been done so early in life that anything we do in the way of reaching out backfires. And Cubed explains why, in psychological terms:

thanks to the Muslim idea of "self-esteem" (they think it is what others think of you, which in turn, is based on concretes, such as whether you seem physically strong, and NOT the reputation that you earn with yourself because of your own competence)

Shoebat, of course, would explain why in religious terms. But the end result is the same--the only way to establish a deterrent is to play strongman and refuse to compromise in any way with any nation under shari'ah law. As long as shari'ah law is in place, the populace is under both physical and mind control.

Now, taking out a few Islamic religious sites might just wake them up to the fact that they have dedicated themselves to a powerless god. As you are aware, all Muslims put great emphasis on the concept of "the will of allah." We need to show all of the Islamic world that we aren't going to fool around with following "the will of allah."

To establish a deterrent, we need to battle on all fronts--ideologically, morally (Ali Sina has a great point!), militarily, etc.

My last point...Karen Hughes is doing much more harm than good. She needs to go back to Texas and quit speaking of what she has no understanding.

5/14/06, 8:56 AM  
Blogger Brooke said...

The idea that anyone would appease America is laughable; why should they appease us when they know that we will not destroy them, and will continue to feed and provide aid to them.

As soon as we started funding Hamas with foriegn aid again, they immediately began seeking weapon's dealers.

Kindness = weakness in Islam.

*sigh* Would that I were a quarter as well-spoken as Jason!

5/14/06, 10:45 AM  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

Motivations of America.

Oil, trade, power.

Having Israel in the Sinai put the Suez at the frontlines of a conflict zone - very bad for trade, very bad for America.

Kuwait, Saudi were protected from Saddam, to protect oil. Darfur has become important because janjaweed forces are marching into Chadian oilfields.

Destroying communism in Afghanistan and the remmenant regime in Serbia, increased the pervasiveness of capitalism. Good for America.


Truthfully America is not a warrior culture, but it is not a selfless all generous appeaser either. America does what it does to make money. For American agression to take place it must be seen as profitable or at least minimally costly and politically advantageous.

Define Islam as costly and it will become the enemy of America.

5/14/06, 6:46 PM  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

Another facit of the warrior psychology that we need to consider is that no warrior likes to be duped. This is especially important in Arab culture where lying, deceit and taqiyya are part of everyday life.

This explains some of the fury of the response to the Motoons or any 'insult' to Mohammed.

How could a cunning warrior admit to himself that he's been conned, that his warlord is in fact a hoaxer, and that his entire culture is built upon a scam?

Exposure of Iscam for what it is, is likely to produce paranoia in these savvy alpha-males. "Twenty years old and you still believe in Mo's bogeyman?"

Ridicule and derision are the answers to Iscam. It should never be given the 'respect' it craves.

5/15/06, 5:03 AM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Seems to me we're willing to kill in Iraq. We are discovring bodies bound and gagged daily. That's "Death Squad" Negroponte's m.o.

Our best and brightest are killing journalists at a regular pace and iraq has become a completely disfunctional state.

I noe that a kahanist clown like jason doesn't mind dropping a few nukes as long as it's only muslims who die. Won't be any blowback at all, right ason? You and beamish know that for sure.

Luckily you and your school of thought are so marginalized that you can do nothing except serve as entertainment.

5/15/06, 9:53 AM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

The "global war on terror". Oh lord I do like a good laugh.

5/15/06, 10:00 AM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

Ducky

The war on terror starts at home and America needs to get serious about subversives. The Commie leadership of Code Pink gave money and aid to our enemies in Falujah.
There should be an immediate trial
of Code Pink's leadership and the guilty should be offered Gitmo or Denaturalization and Deportation with no return ever and no possibility of pardon.

Let Commie finkolas know that peaceful protest and subversion and treason are two different realities. Mere membership in Code Pink should place one under scruitiny.

5/15/06, 4:23 PM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ducky,

You're a leftist, which is a clear enough indication that you don't have the intelligence to fathom why there wasn't a cherry pie inside the can of Crisco you bought (like the picture on the label), much less comprehend the political thoughts of your betters.

I imagine the torment your leftist mentors must have put you through everytime you made like you were actually going to use your head for more than a hat rack, but I'm here to tell you that its okay to abandon your leftist philosophies and tackle subjects having something more to do with reality.

Seriously. You don't have to be stupid on purpose.

5/15/06, 9:16 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Unaha suggests that military might is required for trade. I disagree. One only has to make a payment to receive goods and services. Look at the Sudan. I read somewhere that China buys most of the Sudanese oil and they have no troops in the Sudan. Why should we? For China’s sake?

Most oil producing nations sell oil because they want money. It doesn’t matter who they sell it to; as long as it is sold into the market the economics of oil stays the same. For example, the clown in charge in Venezuela hates Americans and would prefer not to sell us one drop of oil. But he wants the money! His only choice is to stop selling oil into the market (as a whole) and consequently starve.

There are no captive markets, on the production side or consumption side, in the modern economy. The world economy takes a hit when a producer refrains from selling and everyone benefits when producers sell. There are no specifically American interests in any single producer. If we want oil it is far cheaper to buy it, in both monetary terms and political capital, than to go to war.

The problem with certain oil producers is that they have oil revenue to spend on furthering their anti-American jihad and they will continue to have oil revenue as long as someone buys their oil. The problem with Americans is that they think they need that oil. We need it less than other nations. China and India are developing old-industry oil-intensive economies. We have become more of a service and information economy.

The biggest hit in the event of a major disruption of oil production is China’s economy. They need to keep oil flowing. Given that they back proxy battles against America (via North Korea and Iran) we are fighting to keep our enemy flush with oil. Why should we go into the Sudan to keep China’s oil flowing? Of course, they’ll buy it elsewhere but if oil is disrupted world-wide, China suffers most.

In is not in our interest to be Atlas holding the world on our shoulders. Perhaps it is time to shrug!

5/16/06, 9:19 AM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

I'm waiting to find out what happens when Jason shrugs. Or have you done that already, dear?

5/16/06, 11:34 AM  
Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I don't know what happens when President Pappas shrugs, but when President Beamish shrugs, everyone outside America's borders gets to decide if they want to evolve their "nations" ::cough cough:: into self-sustaining entities, or friggin' starve to death.

5/16/06, 12:35 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Beamish shrugs like I do! I see he's already started his campaign on the right foot.

5/16/06, 1:52 PM  
Blogger Weingarten said...

Since the issue of welfare to Israel has been raised. let me quote from an add by FLAME.

"Gen. George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, stated publicly that “Israel is worth five CIAs,” with regard to intelligence passed to our country. He also stated that the yearly $1.8 billion that Israel received in military assistance was worth $50 to $60 billion in intelligence, R&D savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon. In contrast to our commitments in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other parts, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year — including backup and infrastructure — is estimated to be about $200,000, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone is on the order of $5 billion a year.
Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank. Its superb harbor, its outstanding military installations, the air and sea lift capabilities, and the trained manpower to maintain sophisticated equipment are readily at hand in Israel. It is the only country that makes itself available to the United States in any contingency. Yes, Israel is not a burden, but a tremendous asset to the United States."

Now I am opposed to foreign aid in general, and to Israel in particular. It would be better for America and Israel for there to be pay for services rendered, rather than have political payoffs. Yet the complaints about aid to Israel far exceed the loss to America.

5/16/06, 5:29 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish and Jason shrugging--now, there's an image. LOL.

5/16/06, 9:16 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Exxon is not an American company (i.e. owned by America as a whole) but a company formally incorporated in America and traded on an American exchange. It matters little whether we, as individuals, buy oil from BP (or Shell) both incorporated in European nations or whether we buy from Exxon. Both Exxon and BP are owned by people around the world. I pointed this out before I believe here.

It is first and foremost in the interests of the people of Chad to be able to sell its oil and it doesn’t matter to us to whom they sell it; any oil sold into the world market keeps the economics of oil the same. For the people of Chad, not being able to sell oil means they will starve.

It is collectivist thinking that says “everything is interconnected so we are all in the same big boat jointed at the hip and unable to make individual choices.” Of course, it is in our interest that others make reasonable choices and become rational traders. But we can not take responsibility for other people’s lives and make their decision for them. If the people of Chad act responsibly they will insure that oil will be extracted and sold by creating an environment where individuals (and corporations) can invest and trade. If they need to be carried, led, and protected, let that be figured into the cost by Exxon. The market would find the prohibited and so should we.

5/17/06, 6:36 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

The market would find that prohibited and so should we.

5/17/06, 6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helping in Darfur would mean killing Islamists and preventing the expansion by force of the ummah.

Where's the downside?

5/4/07, 6:00 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

No one is claiming that international terrorists are being trained in Darfur. If they are only killing each other, why put our troops at risk? Why take sides if neither is a threat to us. Of course, if we rightly perceive one as a threat then by all means make it hell for them.

If we want to establish a deterrent we have to be both tough and pull back -- tough when they threaten us, pull back when they leave us alone.

5/4/07, 7:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home