·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
Iraq Study
Group unwittingly exposes larger truth by casting the debate over Iraq as one between
"Moderates" versus "Hundred-Percenters."·
In
the December 6, 2006 press conference by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) unveiling the ISG
recommendations for U.S. policy in Iraq, the ISG's emphasis on its non-partisan/bi-partisan approach
unwittingly exposed a larger truth about competing/opposing strategies in the international
arena. Former Senator Alan Simpson, well known for his down-to-earth common sense, best
encapsulated the ISG approach as a triumph of "moderates" over the "hundred-percenters"
-- i.e., the triumph of non-partisanship/bi-partisanship over the "extreme left"
and the "extreme right." In so doing, he (and the ISG) unwittingly exposed a larger
truth that in turn exposes a fundamental flaw in the ISG's "moderate" (i.e.,
non-partisan/bi-partisan) approach to the challenge: In the international arena, the
force of "moderation" is Western Civilization and the "hundred-percenters" are
the Jihadists and their totalitarian allies of convenience. Unlike the ISG, both George W.
Bush and Tony Blair speaking in their joint press conference on December 7, 2006 correctly
characterized the struggle in Iraq as an integral part of the larger struggle between the forces of
"moderation" (i.e., "Western Civilization") and the forces of religious
fanaticism and totalitarian ideologies.
This
alliance of convenience has arisen between mutually opposing ideologies in the forms of 21st Century
incarnations of medieval religious totalitarianism and 20th Century secular totalitarianism.
It's the Islamo-Fascist And Paleo-Stalinist Alliance (IFAPSA*). Such alliance of otherwise
mutually incompatible ideologies springs from their mutual embrace of the tactical doctrine that
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Even though the ISG correctly recognizes that
the Islamo-Fascists and Iraqi Baathists perceive Iraq as a battleground in a struggle against
Western Civilization, the ISG's "real politic" perception mistakenly clings to the 20th
Century balance-of-power view that the self-interests of states force natural enemies into
acceptance of "peaceful coexistence." Just as generals are too often prepared to
fight "the last war," proponents of international strategies are too often prepared to
follow "the last [state-craft paradigm]."
Peaceful
coexistence -- i.e., "the last [state-craft paradigm]" -- ultimately worked in the
bi-polar world of the second half of the 20th Century in which the limited spread of nuclear
technology enabled the "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) theory to prevent defeat of
Western Civilization by 20th Century Stalinism until Ronald Reagan's reality-based insights
into the latter's weaknesses and his stubborn insistence on abandoning the MAD paradigm (over the
vitriolic opposition of its adherents) enabled Western Civilization to hasten the collapse of the
Soviet Union. The peaceful-coexistence/real-politic paradigm that saved Western Civilization
in the 20th Century is "the last [state-craft paradigm]" upon which the ISG seeks to
"wage [state-craft]" against the 21st Century reincarnations of medieval religious
fanaticism and 20th Century Stalinism in the multi-polar world of the 21st Century.
What
the ISG unwittingly exposed but nevertheless fails to recognize is that "the last [state-craft
paradigm]" -- i.e., the "moderation" of "peaceful coexistence"
founded upon the "real politic," self-survival interests of states locked in a bi-polar
ideological struggle-- that saved "moderation" (i.e., Western Civilization)
from 20th Century Stalinist totalitarianism is likely to guarantee the defeat of
"moderation" by the collaborative, alliance-of-convenience strategies of otherwise
mutually incompatible totalitarian forces in the multi-polar world of the 21st Century. Just
as "the last [state-craft] paradigm" of "real-politic/peaceful-coexistence"
worked in the now-gone bi-polar world of the second half of the 20th Century but cannot work in the
multi-polar struggle of the 21st Centry, the "moderation" (i.e.,
non-partisan/bi-partisan) paradigm upon which the ISG predicates its prescriptions for the Iraq may
work within the bi-polar political struggle inside the United States but cannot work
outside the U.S. in a worldwide struggle against such form of "moderation" (i.e., Western
Civilization) by the "hundred-percenters" in the world arena (i.e., the IFAPSA).
Thus,
the ISG's flawed conclusion is swallowed by its flawed premise that equates "moderation"
as the foundation for success in a bi-polar, domestic-politics world with
real-politic/peaceful-coexistence "moderation" as a foundation for success in the
worldwide struggle between Western Civilization (i.e., "moderation") and totalitarian
ideologies (i.e, the "hundred percenters") in the multi-polar world of the 21st
Century because the disappearance of the bi-polar world of the second half of the 20th Century
destroyed the means for "real-politic" interests to coerce totalitarian states (and
non-state totalitarian forces) into the "moderation" of "peaceful
coexistence." As virtually every football expert knows, implementation of a "prevent
defense" by a team that's ahead too often leads to its losing but such implementation by a team
that's behind (or in a tie) almost guarantees its loss.
