Let Us Count the Ways to Win the War on Terrorism

[JPR]

I am posting this link http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/fall2004/helprin.html for your perusal. I found the article very interesting, and look forward to the discussion it spawns here.

JPR

 

[Flatlander]

The article is pretty agressive.

The only way to do it is to coerce existing regimes to accomplish it for us, which is possible by directly threatening their survival, something from which we have refrained by and large because of the paralyzing notion that once we destroy a regime we are bound to stay. We are not. We are bound only to defend the United States. We suffer the illusion that our withdrawal would bring anarchy, when, for example, we have not withdrawn from Iraq and it is the most anarchic of all the states in the region. Perhaps, had we left, it would have settled into a natural equilibrium, what engineers call the angle of repose, or perhaps it would not have. But if there is anarchy why must we attend to it if our attendance is ineffective?

I have to disagree with this. To begin with, it was written in the context of the assumption that Iraq was nurturing anti US terrorist efforts, as per:

If we exempt from repercussion states that nurture terrorism they will nurture it all the more. And having adopted the model of conquest, occupation, and political conversion, we have exempted most supporters of terrorism, because neither we nor all the world have the power to conquer, occupy, and convert all the countries from which terrorism arises.

As we all know, there is no evidence to support that, so to use the Iraq situation in an argument about dealing with terrorism is rather nonsensical. However, in direct response to the question posed:

But if there is anarchy (in the defeated state) why must we attend to it if our attendance is ineffective?

Because from the Geneva CONVENTION (IV) ​

RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
​

SECTION III

MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY
OF THE HOSTILE STATE

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into
the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his
power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the
country.

 

[AaronLucia]

That sounds like the answer to me.

 

[TonyM.]

That article was remarkably incoherant and elastic.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I am posting this link http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/fall2004/helprin.html for your perusal. I found the article very interesting, and look forward to the discussion it spawns here.

JPR

It sounds downright "paleo-conservative"...something more along the lines of what Pat Buchanen would write. I'm sure the neo-cons aren't very happy with Helprin right now because of articles like this.

It shows how a number of conservatives have bailed on Bush.

I have Buchanen's book if you're interested, JPR. I think you'd enjoy it, whether you agree with him or not.


Regards,


Steve