Dominoes Anyone?
The US, it seems, learned a thing or two about the play of dominoes from its experience in Vietnam. There, the play went against us. Since then, play has gone our way, at least under Republican presidents: Latin America was falling to communism when Reagan took office. He reversed the trend and now only one domino--the oldest--remains to fall. Reagan also turned the tables on what had seemed an inevitable march to Soviet victory the year he was elected. By the end of Reagan's decade, all the Soviet dominoes were falling or had fallen.
Now it seems that taking for ourselves a large, militant presence in the Middle East is toppling islamofascist dominoes. Even Bill Clinton would have taken Afghanistan from the Taliban in the wake of 9-11, but Bush is intent on something larger. He sought nothing less than to drive a stake into the heart of islamofascism the way Reagan did into the heart of communism. This is an ambitious program. Reagan was taking on an ideology that was already moribund. Communism at its core was a religion of old people and its adherents were just holding on to the privilege they had wrenched from others in their youth. It was dying from its own contradictions; Reagan just gave it a push. Outside the core, in the third world, communism was just an adolescent yawp--a bid for independence and against anything that smacked of mom and dad (that is to say, of the world's successful nations, many of which had created third world nations as colonies). This part of the world has embraced islamofascism just as strongly because it offers much the same communism did: an 'Xtreem' way to declare independence from the stuffy old parents, tweak mom & dad on the nose, and give ardent youth a cause to die for.
The fact that islamofascism is a much more youthful movement means Bush's job is harder than Reagan's, however. There were few in the Eastern Bloc ready to die for communism as a movement in the late 80s. There are millions who are yearning to kill and to die for what they think islam could be. It's just as savage today as the fascism of the "final solution" and the communism of the Russian Civil War and the Ukrainian terror famine were early in these movements' lives. It's adherents haven't had time to grow into seeing its contradictions and lies. A caution, however: neither did fascism's--killing it required a military solution.
Still, we seem to be making progress against islamofascism. Dominoes may be falling already, vindicating the strategy Bush set in motion in Iraq and has stuck to despite the rage of the Left in our country and Europe.
The Syrian-backed regime in Lebanon fell yesterday due to popular pressure. Syria itself will be next, if our government stays on its current path. Iraq is making real progress despite the best efforts of the islamofascists to undermine it. Can Iran be far? It's the only place that's lived under an extreme version of sharia for any length of time and its people are starting to build pressure from within. The nazi solution was right for Iraq; perhaps a Soviet solution will be right for Iran.
Update: Vodkapudit has some useful perspective on the war also.
Monk
Now it seems that taking for ourselves a large, militant presence in the Middle East is toppling islamofascist dominoes. Even Bill Clinton would have taken Afghanistan from the Taliban in the wake of 9-11, but Bush is intent on something larger. He sought nothing less than to drive a stake into the heart of islamofascism the way Reagan did into the heart of communism. This is an ambitious program. Reagan was taking on an ideology that was already moribund. Communism at its core was a religion of old people and its adherents were just holding on to the privilege they had wrenched from others in their youth. It was dying from its own contradictions; Reagan just gave it a push. Outside the core, in the third world, communism was just an adolescent yawp--a bid for independence and against anything that smacked of mom and dad (that is to say, of the world's successful nations, many of which had created third world nations as colonies). This part of the world has embraced islamofascism just as strongly because it offers much the same communism did: an 'Xtreem' way to declare independence from the stuffy old parents, tweak mom & dad on the nose, and give ardent youth a cause to die for.
The fact that islamofascism is a much more youthful movement means Bush's job is harder than Reagan's, however. There were few in the Eastern Bloc ready to die for communism as a movement in the late 80s. There are millions who are yearning to kill and to die for what they think islam could be. It's just as savage today as the fascism of the "final solution" and the communism of the Russian Civil War and the Ukrainian terror famine were early in these movements' lives. It's adherents haven't had time to grow into seeing its contradictions and lies. A caution, however: neither did fascism's--killing it required a military solution.
Still, we seem to be making progress against islamofascism. Dominoes may be falling already, vindicating the strategy Bush set in motion in Iraq and has stuck to despite the rage of the Left in our country and Europe.
The Syrian-backed regime in Lebanon fell yesterday due to popular pressure. Syria itself will be next, if our government stays on its current path. Iraq is making real progress despite the best efforts of the islamofascists to undermine it. Can Iran be far? It's the only place that's lived under an extreme version of sharia for any length of time and its people are starting to build pressure from within. The nazi solution was right for Iraq; perhaps a Soviet solution will be right for Iran.
Update: Vodkapudit has some useful perspective on the war also.
Monk
posted by Monk | 17:28
