Saturday, March 01, 2008

Are Jed Babbin's guns for Radical Islam, China, Old Europe, the UN, or ... ?

Jed Babbin got space in The Montgomery Advertiser recently to simultaneously shill various themes of the right wing. Distancing Bu$hCo from St. John McCain was attempted. Jed also managed to stoke fears of terrorism. He even opines that "the left" is getting away with straw men arguments that he claims are "guns vs. butter" retreads because President Bu$h "has never defined the war, the enemy, or what victory would be comprised of." He praised General Petraeus and "The Surge". He does the obligatory comparison of terrorism to Communism and Nazism. He also gets in a lick on Congress in the early 1970s merely looking by at South Vietnam as their people and millions of others suffered.

He also remarkably writes:
Which brings the inevitable conclusion: regardless of what happens to Iraq's nascent democracy, a war must be fought to defeat the terrorist ideology, and to compel the nations that sponsor terrorism against us and our allies to cease doing so. Unless and until that occurs, the war goes on.
Thanks Jed for confirming that you and yours see "war" as pretty much the only answer. The fact that military options are but one piece of the long, hard process of dealing with threats that face our world seems to escape you. And once again, how does war defeat an ideology? Can war compel? I understand war destroys. War doesn't however build squat. Also, since you've pretty much rejected Old Europe and the United Nations I don't suppose cooperation amongst law enforcement and intelligence communities gives you much hope. But I'd really like to know how to respond to the threat from China? Reckon we ought to be getting ready for the "showdown"? You claim China wants war don't you? It looks like you're now rather worried about the words of Islamists, China, Hugo Chavez and Russia and ... as well. Newt Gingrich wrote the foreword so surely it will be a blockbuster.

Surely being ready to fight a possible enemy possessing serious modern weapons and the like rather than trying to fight an ideology makes some sense. I agree we ought to be aware of words from nations or groups or persons that might wish us harm or merely have contrary interests or perspectives.

I also know that Regnery Publishing and their Human Events and ... not to mention Jed Babbin might not be the best sources to turn for serious thinking. Earning that keep Jed on the wingnut welfare? Being on the dole for the glorious cause of movement conservatism must be a nice way to earn a living since so many are doing it. John Gunn

No comments: