Andrew Sullivan doesn't get it?
I'm shocked, shocked.
Stephen Green points out that Andrew Sullivan has lived in America roughly half his life, and he still doesn't understand Americans in his gut. Based on the post that Green refers to, I agree.
Stephen Green points out that Andrew Sullivan has lived in America roughly half his life, and he still doesn't understand Americans in his gut. Based on the post that Green refers to, I agree.
posted by Kate Marie | 7:34 PM | Permalink
|
6 comments
6 Comments:
Thanks for your comment, Rose, and please feel free to go on as long as you like. Not only do I think you're right, obviously, but you always manage to be right with panache.
I have seen the study you mentioned, and I've been wanting to blog about it. There's a recent Charles Krauthammer piece that I thought dovetailed nicely with that study. One of Krauthammer's points was that -- if he granted for the sake of argument that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan created more recruits for Al Qaeda -- he'd take "our recruits" (the Muslims who had been won over to the anti-Islamist cause) over theirs.
I'll admit that I'm still processing the torture/interrogation/Gitmo information we've all been given, but these days when I watch the news and hear about possible prisoner abuse, my rule of thumb is: How upset would be I be if I saw Iraqi insurgents or al-Qaeda warriors doing the same to our guys?
And the truth is, if Islamic terrorists were simply putting panties on our captured soldiers' (and contract workers') heads and making them listen to crappy pop music or putting them in cold rooms rather than demonstrating a creepy love of beheading, I'd probably be jumping for friggin' joy. (And if I were, say, waking up from a 20-year coma and had only that information as a means of judging this conflict, I'd assume that we had a serious advantage against a soft, confused, conflicted enemy.)
When I see how many commenters, even at Vodkapundit, trot out that tired "being tough just creates more terrorists!" line, implicitly suggesting that we ought to be nicer and appease a bunch of woman-hating, Jew-hating, gay-hating theocratic savages, I can't help but think--with deep dread--that this is all going to get much, much worse before it gets better.
KM, I thought Krauthammer's "our recruits" referred to the US military, which is made up of volunteers.
A neighbor's son signed up right after 9-11, despite having a toddler daughter and child on the way. He's back now, safe and sound, thank God. But I can't help but choke up every time I think of the sacrifice he made.
C.I.V., here's what Krauthammer said:
"The terrorists may have recruited their new Atta, now splattered on the walls of the Baghdad mosque he has suicide-bombed. We have recruited tens of millions of Afghan and Iraqi Muslims--with Lebanese and others to follow--opposing that Atta as they attempt to build decent, moderate, tolerant societies.
I'll take our recruits."
I think the immediate antecedent for the reference to "our recruits" is the tens of millions of Afghan and Iraqi Muslims who are opposed to the Atta ideology.
But I agree with you that our recruits -- as in the volunteers for the U.S. military -- are magnifent, and I feel the same way that you do about their sacrifice.
Oops. Must have read that piece before the coffee kicked in. Then I went and posted the comment on the wrong post. Yeesh.
I hear ya, C.I.V.! Coffee is a miraculous beverage. If I were a poet, I'd write an ode to it.
You didn't put the comment on the wrong post, though, since I mentioned the Krauthammer article and conclusion in the comments here.
Post a Comment
<< Home