Due to several recent blog posting on other places, I thought I would revisit this topic in hopes of providing something for libs to consider.
History is not only interesting, but it provides a playbook for the future. In 1979, the Soviet Union, in an effort to prop up a communist government in Afghanistan, sent a large military force to the country. The particulars of the invasion can be found everywhere, and I am concentrating on the lesson of defeat.
The United States fought the Soviets by proxy. We supported the mujaheddin in their military efforts against the Soviets, and they were forced to withdraw in 1989. This is one of three events of the late 20th century that has fostered the resurgence of radical Islam (the other two are the religious surge in Iran and the fall of the Berlin Wall). If you read what was said by the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan, the defeat of the Soviets created confidence and zeal. They were convinced that because they had beaten a superpower, they could beat ALL superpowers. The radicals then began planning for the return of an Islamic caliphate, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Radical Islam has objectives. There is a reason that peace overtures by Israel will never work. There is a reason that when Israel gives up territory, the bad guys want more of it. Their objective is not benign, it is evil. The objective is the death of every non-Muslim possible. The goal is to establish Islam as the only religion in the world.
Terrorists have been emboldened by the defeat of the Soviets. They have also been emboldened by our lack of response to the war on America that has been ignored since the 1980s. We can't afford to have them even more confident by our leaving Iraq because we don't have the stomach for an extended fight.
We must look at recent history. Europe is pacifying the radicals just as they wanted to pacify Hitler in the 1930s. When America decides to win, we are undefeated. Many of us are committed, now we need everyone else to get on the "war wagon" and get this over with.
You Are Among The Elite!
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Leftists Ignore Relevant History
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 Posts From Readers:
For the benefit of your readers, Robert, answer the following:
1.) Who was the a prominent leader of what is better called the Afghan Mujahideen movement? (Mujahideen is a generic term that can be attributed to any number of holy war crusaders.)
2.) Where did he and his men, then-classified as a group of multinational freedom fighters as depicted in Rambo III, get their training on the use of Stinger missiles?
3.) What did this leader say when the United States proposed "temporarily" sending troops to protect the Saudi Arabian oilfields? (Bonus points: What happened in retribution from King Saud?)
ANSWER KEY:
1.) Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden
2.) The CIA trained the "Muj" in the use of the Stinger missiles which tipped the scales heavily.
3.) Osama bin Laden criticized the decision to allow US troops to be stationed in the "Land of Arabia" as his interpretation of the Qur'an states that no two peoples can inhabit the Land of Arabia. He stated that the United States would never leave. The US finally left in 2003, some 12 years after promising to leave upon the conclusion of the first Gulf War.
I could go on but the point is, Robert, that if you want to delve into history, you'd best not be so selective with it. I keep telling you this but you refuse to listen. Had we listened to those speaking of the consequences of ignoring history perhaps we would've have made the enormous mistake of invading Iraq in the first place.
The answer to the bonus question is that he had his Saudi citizenship revoked.
You provided correct answers for the first two, but I don't see the relevance. On the face of your argument is that we should have checked the history to determine that the Soviets were defeated, so we should have assumed that we would be defeated as well.
Two problems with that comparison. The first is that the Soviets were there to prop up a communist government that presented no threat to their national security. The Soviets had not been attacked by an ideology, nor had they had a jihad declared against them. Their embassies were not being bombed, their troops were not being targeted in their own nation. The second problem is that during that time, radical islam did not have the idea to conquer the world. Since 1989 they are actively seeking to export terrorism through Europe, America, Asia, and Africa.
We have to stand against it.
I believe my point was that we have repeatedly misunderstood how these countries work and we have created and/or empowered a good portion of our own enemies.
As for your comments about what could more properly be defined as the former USSR, you are again ignoring history. This is what the USSR looked like when it invaded Afghanistan. Their reasoning for doing so was to shore up their own Middle East prospects considering how close the US was to the recently ousted Shah of Iran and Iraq. Everyone wanted a piece of Iranian oil.
Robert said...
The second problem is that during that time, radical islam did not have the idea to conquer the world. Since 1989 they are actively seeking to export terrorism through Europe, America, Asia, and Africa.
Again, you're being selective. Ever heard of counties by the name of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia or Kazakhstan? What is currently the cause of 99% of the violence in those countries? To say that they haven't been or weren't targeted is again a very selective interpretation of history at best.
Post a Comment