People seem to have powerful feelings about capitalism. Especially American style capitalism. Regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, I don't think it can be denied that it is the most successful economic model the world has seen to date.
One reason is certainly the productivity of the American people. For Americans, working is a badge of pride and the workplace is a place of identification. An 80 hour work week means a person is a real bread winner. Furthermore, the Christian ethic lends a helping hand. The idea seems to be that God put wealth in the world for people to earn. Earning wealth is thus agreeable to God and the more you have, the more He agrees. So the American people go about their work like schizophrenic worker bees, convinced that their hard work will bring them closer to God.
American capitalism is fueled by the American melting pot. In America a product has to appeal to Americans. But what is an American? It's been said that Americans are so various they can't even be painted. So, an American company has to find a way, either by producing a wide range of products or by appealing to the largest possible demographic , to sell enough to stay in business. Since America has representatives of every group of people in the world, our products are ready-marketed to an enormous customer base. After all, you don't have to do much work to market a product to Mexicans or Brazilians when you are already marketing to their American cousins.
Additionally, American style capitalism reaps the reward of being free (as in free market, heh). Other economies in the world either suffer from crippling taxes and entitlement burdens or flat out government control and centralization. Companies can not expand when they have to operate under a worst-case-scenario business model. That's the reason for a lot of stagnation in Europe. So, while American companies explode in economic boom times, European counterparts crawl ahead. They are insulated from inevitable busts, but will always be one step behind. I think centralization speaks for itself. We only need look as far as the Middle East and most of Asia to see those results to greater and lesser degrees. China is growing at a phenomenal pace, but the timid steps it has taken towards free-markets are not nearly enough. China's economy and their growth is a result of their emergence from an agricultural society to an industrial society. The sheer size of their country and population will guarantee a certain level of sustainable growth, but before long their economy will reach a plateau. The freedom and lack of controls in American Corporati could be considered good or bad, but our market is powerfully self-correcting. Freedoms can be abused, but eventually the abuse will be corrected and shaken out.
Finally, I think America has tapped some of mankind's baser instincts for a positive result. Communism and centralized controlled economies fail because they are inconsistent with the human condition. Humans are programmed to acquire things, to provide things for their families and to strive for success. It might not be very nice, but in its worst form, we call this greed. Communism and socialism don't work because when Bob wants to make five dollars and then goes out and makes five dollars he wants to keep as much of it as possible. He earned it. If Bob has to give up two dollars to pay for Dan who doesn't have or want a job, Bob will either get angry or he will decide he doesn't need to work either. Bob wants to be greedy. In America people are allowed and encouraged to be greedy within the scope of the law. Every Bob and Dan (and Sally, I might add) has an equal opportunity to make their own fortune and their own living as they see fit. In short, the American system has proven to be most compatible with the human condition. We're allowed to be people and pursue our dreams and desires (provided it's within the scope of the law) and are further rewarded for that behavior.
I had a conversation with some Danish guy during one of my travels. We got bogged down in a mutual lack of understanding, but he said something I found kind of startling for a minute. It kind of highlighted some differences between America and Europe that have emerged during the War on Terror.
We were talking about crime and of course America has a fairly impressive crime rate which in my experience is something Europeans love to point out. I think America's love affair with crime dates back to Prohibition and the speakeasies and so on. Anyhow, the conversation came to guns. He asked if so many people were killed by guns, why did our government not simply outlaw them? I blinked and stuttered for a few minutes, not entirely certain I had heard him correctly. I said because the law says we're allowed to own guns. Why don't you change the law? Because it's not a law it's a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Here is where we reached mutual misunderstanding. For me, the conecpt of arbitrarily changing the law like that is anathema. For him, understanding how I felt about that law was alien.
I think it underscores a fundamental difference between Europe and America. Europeans place themselves in second place to their governments. Their representatives are there to take care of the citizens and do what's best for them. It's almost a parent/child relationship. If the kids are playing with guns and getting hurt the parents take the guns away. In America our government operates according to our will. It's more like an investor/corporate relationship. The Americans invest continued good will and support for the government as long as their return on our investment is satisfactory to us.
Polls show that somewhere around 80% or more of the Spanish populace opposed the war in Iraq but Aznar sent troops anyhow. Furthermore, he was favored for re-election until the Madrid bombing. If those numbers were polled in America we would not have gone to war. Bush would not have gotten Congressional approval. If he had gone to war, Congress and the President would be out on their ear on the next election. It should go without saying that not every opinion can be accommodated by a government, but by and large the majority of Americans supported military action in Iraq and that's why our men are over there (I can't tell you how much I appreciate what they're doing).
I'm drifting a little from my original point though. Americans have respect for the rule of law. We made the laws, we protected the rights we thought should be ours, and by and large we abide by them because we agree to cooperate. Europe is far less populist than America. Most of the governments are removed from direct accountability to their constituents and can frequently make decisions almost by fiat. Thus, many laws in European nations are not passed because the people say they should be but because the governments think it's for the best. American liberals use this tactic by taking the route of judicial review, but even then, there are checks in place to prevent the courts from eroding rights. Actually, liberals tend to use the courts to expand civil rights, but in either case I would rather see it go through the legislative process than the judicial one.
There's another difference (more directly related to the conversation above) that I think is make clear. I don't know for fact, but I suspect the United States and Canada are probably fairly unique for not having much in the way of gun control. And I understand Canada is actually trying to do something about that. For the United States it would take a Constitutional Convention and a virtual concensus of the population to really effect gun controls. Anyhow, the 2nd Amendment is central to American foreign policy. Since isolationism is no longer an option, our foreign policy can be summed up as being a matter of peace through strength. That's where Republicans stand, and that's what the 2nd Amendment is all about. In an earlier post, I mentioned one of the Frontier Laws: "Them what's first, gits." Another frontier law could be written as "Them what's got the biggest stick, keeps." Possession is nine tenths of the law. It's actually a matter of honor and helps describe why America isn't interested in imperialism. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. They are in possession of Iraq. We might have a bigger stick, but it's not ours to [i][b]keep[/b][/i]. We have a big stick because we do intend to keep what's ours and we intend to see to it that other people keep what's theirs.
European attitudes in the past have been "Them what's got the biggest stick takes." It's why Europe was at war basically from the time of the Greeks until modern times, why they were so fanatically imperialistic, and why they don't entirely understand our motivations for the war in Iraq.
It's a fascinating place, and probably will become the next contender for super-power status in the world. Recent news of China, a perusal of some history books, and a [url=http://www.adamsolove.com/blo...]really good article [/url] I read earlier gave me some ideas about where things might be headed in that part of the world.
The United States has enjoyed relative supremacy in the Far East since World War II. But, remnants of the Cold War are giving us fits. After World War II America consolidated its position in Japan and South Korea. Once that was done we largely ignored the Far East. Not entirely of course but there were larger fish to fry and more volatile places in the world that needed our attention. Further our immediate strategic interests forced the U.S. to make distasteful decisions that directly effect our current place in the Far East. One of those decisions was that during the Cold War, the U.S. bolstered Pakistan against the USSR. This has colored Indian relations with America ever since. There is a certain mistrust there that has prevented India from forming the close ties with America that would prove useful to us today.
Anyhow, we are starting to see a problem take shape in the Far East. The problem is China. Up until about the last ten or twenty years, China has been relatively backward and undeveloped, and in spite of its bulk and hostility to America has not been threatening enough to worry about. Today with the economic boom in China they are becoming more powerful and making in-roads (economic and political) in the Far East.
Why does this spell trouble for America? China's increased wealth and influence is attractive to certain dissatisfied nations. France's participation in military excercises with China is evidence of this. Most people are probably well aware of the EU's desire to find a counter-balance to the U.S. I think it's equally clear that the EU will not provide that counter-balance. Their alternative is to look elsewhere for a strong nation that is less-than-friendly to the U.S.
One thing that's particularly interesting about China is that they have proven to be particularly canny in approaching international affairs. On the other hand they have a horrible record domestically. The divide between affluent and poor is enormous. Their human rights record stands on its own. Their economic policies are not intended to improve the overall good of the citizenry. They have unbelievable domestic hurdles to overcome. However, they have used what influence and wealth they have to begin shifting the balance in the Asia Pacific.
Economically, China has been more likely to award contracts to European countries than the Americans. Furthermore. Additionally, they have actively maintained an economic policy that is hostile to American economics. Most notably is pegging the yuan to the dollar instead of allowing it to float. Chinese products become more competitive on a price basis. The Fed is using a similar strategy to bolster our economy and trade in Europe through a controlled devaluation of the dollar making our products more competetive than European products (I think it's worth noting that European economic policies are actually harmful to their own interests. They have tried to protect themselves with high interest rates and an overvalued Euro currency instead of trying to compete with America. Another example of European reactionism. Anyhow, I digress.)
Militarily China has the largest armed forces in the world and is a nuclear power. Fortunately, I don't think that means they are particularly formidable. At present they lack the resources to project force outside of their own borders. Most of their equipment is Cold War era, and a lot of it came from the Soviet Union. I think part of China's friendliness towards Europe comes from the idea that they can score better military equipment.
Fortunately for the U.S., we aren't big on handing out our newest gadgets to our friends across the pond. Although China can upgrade to European standards they still will not be equivalent to American standards so we will maintain a technological edge. We also are seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift in military tactics that will leave Europe and Asia at least an entire generation behind us in military technology. In a decade if not sooner we will have [url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/...]rapid response technology[/url] that will allow the U.S. to deploy to any part of the globe within 72 hours. We will have [url=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-10...]land warrior[/url] within the next couple of years. And before that we will have a [url=http://www.wired.com/wired/ar...]fully digitized network[/url] integrating the entire armed forces. The United States will be fighting industrial age armies with digital age armies. An equivalent can be seen when Europe took thier industrial age armies to fight agricultural age armies in Africa.
Having said all of the above, I think the U.S. needs to protect our political and economic interests in the region. China probably couldn't compete with America in an outright war but the losses would be unimaginable due to the sheer scale of such a conflict. Additionally, I think China would prove to be much less constrained in their application of nuclear force. That is why America needs to pursue economic and political measure to limit China's opportunities for aggression.
That the U.S. decided to veto the resolution is no big whoop. A good call as far as I'm concerned.
The second article reads like an article in the S.F. Chronicle endorsing a candidate running for office. It's a little disgusting really. If that article were my only source of information on Hamas I would think they were lobbyists or maybe the Sierra Club. They don't bother mentioning that Hamas is hip deep in the body parts of its own suicide bombers. In fact, near the end they actually say "Hamas activists."
Something else that is noteworthy about the Radio Netherlands article is that they paint Arafat in a bad light and highlight the politicatl in-fighting that is going on among the Palestinians. They even mention that there is in-fighting going on within Hamas itself and Rantisi may not end up being the new leader of the organization.
I think this is probably better for Israel than not. Smearing Yassin across the pavement will prove to be politically destabilizing for the Palestinians. Arafat is probably the most influential Palestinian around, but he is not the leader of the Palestinian people. What's more, he's losing influence. It's become abundantly clear to everybody that negotiating with Arafat is not the same as negotiating with Palestinians. What's more, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad have gained ground against Fatah. At least domestically. In the eyes of Palestinians Jew killing is much preferable to negotiating. Arafat did what he could with the Martyr Brigade but he's a dollar short and a day late. Arafat's power base is eroding.
I'm not sure Israel is quite prepared to smear Arafat. He is the international face of Palestinians and it would prove politically difficult for Israel and the U.S. But, by inflaming the Palestinians in general, they will further help to erode Arafat's influence among the Palestinians. If he doesn't retaliate he will be seen as weak. Whoever does respond will garner more support among the Palestinians and another dail will be driven into Arafat's coffin. The Radio Netherlands article remarks on a potential contender for Rantisi's job but says that he is more moderat than the hardliner Rantisi. Thus, Rantisi probably will become the new leader of Hamas and probably will launch a series of attacks against Israel. And probably will undermine Arafat even more.
In an odd sort of way I have some sympathy for Arafat. He can't win for losing. In fact he lost a long time ago. Only his connections and his money have kept him where he is. He's vilified in the West for not having pursued peace. His own people vilify him for not being fanatical enough. Oh well, sucks to be Arafat I guess.
Anyhow, I think Palestine is headed for outright civil war. And I think Rantisi just won the title for having the worst job on the face of the planet. I'm taking bets on how long he'll be around before the Israelis smear him.
Some of the powers that (will or may) be in Iraq are polishing their games playing skills. Saddam Hussein proved that the UN actually can be useful. Ayatollah Sistani learned the lesson well.
Yesterdays San Jose Mercury News had a report that Sistani threatened a boycott if the UN failed to reject the current interim Iraqi Constitution. This, of course, comes after Sistani invited the UN to Iraq and indicated that they would abide by The UNs decision on the feasibility of direct elections. I don't think anybody was surprised when the UN said that direct elections would not work in the near future.
Of course, the point of doing the feasibility study was not Sistani's primary interest. He was more interested in getting the UN back in Iraq period. Ayatollah Sistani is turning out to be quite the crafty fellow. He thinks that by bringing in the UN he will be able to use them to shape Iraq's constitution and eventual government. I think he also has hope that if he cooperates with the UN he will be able to throw political stumbling blocks in America's and the Coalition's way. He's trying to set up a situation pitting the U.S. and the UN against one another with Iraq in the middle and himself and his faction as the beneficiaries of our squabbling. It was a strategy Saddam successfully employed for over ten years. I don't think that Sistani realizes that the balance has changed since then.
For the duration of President Bush's term the UN will be a strictly advisory and humanitarian body. The U.S. will participate and work towards common goals but our actions will be ours with or without their approval, especially in Iraq. I suspect that Sistani still harbors hope that we can be bound by the UN. He also suspects that he can bully them as Hussein did. I can't argue that he would prove to be the kind of monster Hussein was but he is undeniably a more fundamentalist candidate than the U.S. would like to see in power in Iraq. And there is further, no doubt that he would dearly love to have his faction, the Shiites, calling the shots in Iraq.
Sistani's objection to the current interim constitution is that it sets up a three-person Presidential council. The council is formed of a Shiite, a Sunni, and a Kurd and each has a veto power that can arbitrarily be used to maintain a balance of power. The veto is an additional bone of contention for Sistani because he believes it gives undue power to the Sunnis and Kurds.
His concerns are telling of the mindset in that part of the world. The interim constitution is by definition temporary and once it is in place and the government is operating their first order of business will be to form a permanent constitution and permanent form of government. However with the interim constitution set up as it is it will force the various factions to reach compromises. By insisting that such a mechanism not be in place, Sistani is arguing in favor of a Shiite tyranny of sorts. A so-called tyranny of the majority with Shiites making up somewhere around 60% of Iraq's population. What his position says though is that he is unwilling to compromise period.
Sistani's letters to the UN display a respectable grasp of the principles of democracy, but also that he understands how they might be undermined or used. He continues to demand direct elections. Clearly direct elections would favor a given majority as opposed to proportional or first-past-the-post elections which all but guarantees second or third parties a spot at the table. Furthermore, he recognizes that checks and balances are potential stumbling blocks to a Shiite controlled state. What strikes me about both Afghanistan and Iraq is that they have no intuitive understanding of how or perhaps why a democracy works. They still are operating under the assumption that the government is the be all and end all of what goes on inside a country. The concept of republicanism is alien to them. Personal liberty doesn't seem to have a place in their cultural frame of reference.
I think that is America's greatest stumbling block. If Iraq (most importantly) is to have a successful democracy they have to learn that the personal and religious aspects of the lives of its constituents need not conflict with the government aspects. Clearly when one considers that Islam is technically a religion a culture and a basis for government it becomes an enormous hurdle.
France and China participated in joint naval operations near Taiwan as Taiwan prepares for upcoming elections.
A spokesperson for the Chinese Communist Party, on condition of anonymity, said "We are in no way attempting to influence the election in Taiwan. China is committed to upholding our policy of one country two systems. Our naval presence is strictly meant to guarantee a favorable, democratic outcome of the pending elections." When asked about the French involvement our source refused to comment.
President Chirac said in a speech "The United States has driven a wedge among the member nations of the EU. If we are to provide a counter-balance to American Imperialism we must build our own allied coalition. China has expressed interest in being part of such a coalition and said they will build a rice paper palace for me if I end EU weapons embargos and help them bully Taiwan. In the meantime I have already signed the treaty for Germany and Belgium."
Democractic presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry said "I have very strong feelings about this issue. I absolutely feel France and China are doing the right thing and I will do everything in my power to stop them."
Today is a two-day. I found a reprint of an International Herald Tribune article on Reducto's blog and couldn't resist discussing.
I don't need to reprint the entire thing so I'll just pull a few excerpts and add a few cents.
[i]"Majorities in the three countries - historically Washington's closest NATO partners - also said that as a consequence of the war they had less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Mistrust was expressed by 82 percent in Germany, 78 percent in France and 58 percent in Britain."[/i]
The NATO comment is telling. NATO was once intended to be a multi-lateral defense treaty. An attack on one member nation was to be treated as an attack on all. Unfortunately, Europe seems to think NATO is a European defense agency that should be funded (and soldiered) by the U.S. and operated by the EU. The U.S. demonstrated that we do not like that arrangement. The EU is afraid (and probably not a little ashamed) that they must rely on NATO so heavily for their own security and it's no wonder they don't trust us when we get to decide whether NATO lives or dies.
[i]"According to François Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, alienation is increasing in Europe "because there's been no give on the Bush side."
"There is a widespread perception in Europe that we have the choice of being treated as a vassal - a poodle in the case of Britain - or being treated as an antagonist," Heisbourg said."[/i]
While the U.S. was dickering with the UN, France came out and said that they would arbitrarily veto any resolution that came down the pike in regard to Iraq. Antagonistic? Naah. I think their perceptions are colored by their own failings. Case in point, Switzerland is not a member of the coalition, nor have they attempted to undermine America's efforts. They are neutral. Their neutrality is respected and they are neither atagonists or vassals. They call Britain an American lap dog. Nevermind that Britain is thus far a willing member of the coalition. Nevermind that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do. The British look bad and it's all because of the U.S.
[i]"In France, 84 percent said they felt the United States did not take their country's interests into account in international policy decisions, up from 76 percent last May. Similar strong feelings were expressed in Turkey (79 percent), Jordan (77 percent), Russia (73 percent), and Germany (69 percent).
In contrast, 70 percent of Americans surveyed felt that the United States takes other countries' interests into account.
"Americans think we're cooperative and popular," Kohut said of the perception gap. "Americans think, 'We're the ones on the white horse who do good things for the planet, like dealing with terrorism and evil dictators, and we're misunderstood.'"[/i]
Since when have France, Germany, Turkey, Jordan, and Russia made policy intended to benefit American interests? Furthermore, I don't think Americans care too terribly much about our international popularity. They're right in thinking that we are looking out for ourselves. They're wrong in thinking that we assume we're some kind of saviour nation. It's in our best interest to stamp out terrorism. It's in every country's best interest, but it's hard work and dangerous work, and if an opportunity presents itself there will be reprisal. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. For now, the U.S. is the only nation that is able and willing to push back.
'The head of the EU's executive, European Commission chief Romano Prodi, added in an interview yesterday:
It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists. Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago.'
------------------------- -----
The EU will also hold an emergency meeting of EU interior and justice ministers on Friday before a summit of European leaders on March 25-26. The issue of terrorism is sure to overshadow scheduled talks on economic reforms.
Among EU proposals being floated after Thursday's Madrid train bombings is the possibility of appointing a special EU anti-terrorism czar, Reuters reported.
---------------------
Mr. Prodi says terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago. Europe has suffered its share of terrorism but nothing quite so spectacular as the Madrid bombing. Terrorists appear more powerful to Europeans now because the Islamic bombs didn't go off in America or Indonesia or Iraq or Morocco. They went off in Spain, in the very heart of Europe. And now the decision making suits are ready to pee in their pants because they have to face the reality that the next one might go off in their own neighborhood.
There has been a lot of writing about the European split caused by America. I don't know that America caused the split, I think it more likely that we revealed an already existing wound. We ripped one of the EU band-aids off and now they're trying to stop the bleeding. However, Spain showed us that the division might not be quite so deep after all. The Spanish learned the wrong lesson from the bombings and fled to the welcoming arms of the French. Now America has to worry about some of our other allies. What will happen if a bomb goes off when the Poles are due at the polls? Will the Czechs turn tail and flee yelping from the mean bullies when a plane is crashed in Prague?
Al Quaeda could potentially fight a war of attrition against our allies. Especially since they have seen how effective that tactic was in Spain. Al Quaeda's most powerful ally is the European pacifists and they have handed those European countries a poster child with Spain. I suspect we will hear a drumbeat of "I told you so." The French and their partners in cowardice will point to Spain and tell us that's what happens when you try to fight. What's really sad is that the Spanish will let themselves be used so shamelessly.
And now we hear from President Prodi exactly what the European response will be. Have a meeting and hire some more bureaucrats. There is nothing that can't be accomplished by sticking some yahoo in a suit and having him spew insipid weak-kneed diplo-babble about finding a peaceful solution. Meanwhile, terrorists of every stripe will run roughshod over these people and their army of jabber jaws. They might find peace but the cost will be every ounce of pride and character. Instead of treating the disease they will treat the symptoms.
These are the same 'leaders' who want to see John Kerry win in November. He has essentially said he will adopt the same strategy. He will pour money into our 'front-line first responders.' He intends to increase spending and training on airport, sea port, and transit security and screening. He wants to bloat the budgets of the firefighters and the police officers and the hospitals. You can find his grand plan to 'combat' terrorism [url=http://www.johnkerry.com/pres...]here[/url]. I summarize the whole thing below but I have to mention my favorite part.
----------------------
o Stop trickling resources through bureaucracies and get to those on the front lines. Federal money will rapidly move from Washington to the agencies which need it no stops in state capitals or with any politicians. NYFD money will go directly to the NYFD.
o National standards to assure that every American receives a basic level of security. Every American is entitled to a basic level of security, and national standards will allow us to define how to prepared and every jurisdiction should develop a road map for getting us there without unfocused and inefficient spending.
------------------------
How do those two statements square? I work for a bureaucracy and am well aware of how these kinds of roadmaps work. There will be dozens if not hundreds of meetings between experts and bureaucrats and lawyers and lobbyists. Eventually, a phone book sized report will be printed up offering certainly inefficient, probably inaccurate, and potentially dangerous recommendations that have no bearing on what the police and firefighters and paramedics actually need to be effective. Should their recommendations be followed it will take another decade or so to understand that it's not working and another few dozen studies and commissions to figure out why not.
Anyhow, let me sum the whole thing up. Senator Kerry's strategy to fight terrorism is to have a well-trained army of paramedics, firefighters and police officers on hand so that the next time 3,000 Americans are turned into puddles of red mush we can clean up the crime scene efficiently. Americans need to ask themselves if they would rather have the front line of the War on Terror be in Iraq and Iran and Indonesia or if they don't mind so much that it be fought in New York or Denver or San Francisco.
We might be able to fight a reactionary war. Much of Europe thinks it's the way to go. We simply wait until the bombs go off, we clean up the mess and hunt down some criminals. It's all very humanitarian. Hundreds if not thousands of people might die. Billions of dollars worth of damage might be done. But at least nobody's feelings are getting hurt. Maybe it's the multi-cultural thing to do. It's part of the radical side of Islamic culture to blow things up and we should respect that. If we ask nicely they might go back to blowing themselves up instead of us.
I would rather choose to take the battle to them than have them bring it here. Our police and and firefighters and paramedics should not be the front line. That means the war is being fought in America. They are our defensive line. They are our first-responders and that, by definition, means there will already have been an attack when they are called to serve. Nobody should be blown up, but that isn't reality. I prefer to hear about explosions in Baghdad and Ankara and Casablanca than see them happening in New York or Washington D.C.
The Spanish have rolled over like a bunch of intimidated puppy dogs. They were willing to fight until the battlefield came to them. It's a little startling to me. We are in a war. It's not reasonable to think that you can fight a war without suffering casualties. Now that the Spanish have felt the sting of the terrorists they no longer have any stomach for fighting. They blame the former government for the bombing. They said that if Spain hadn't aided the U.S. in fighting in Iraq the terrorists wouldn't have attacked.
They might be right. It's entirely possible that the Spanish would have been left alone had they sat by and watched. In spite of witnessing, first hand, the depravity of these mass murderers, they cringe and beg forgiveness. Instead of standing up and saying "We will not be bullied, we will not be afraid, we will not allow you to win," they have caved in. Instead of living proudly and freely they now seek to placate the terrorists. In one day the Spanish have become puppets to Al Qaeda and every other terrorist group who threatens their country. They now have to worry about every policy and who it might anger. They have effectively said Al Qaeda wins.
What they did not realize and still do not understand is that we are not fighting a rational enemy. Our foe does not think like we do and the people of Spain and the French and the Germans fail to understand. Left at the site of the bombing was tape that said the terrorists will win because they believe in death and we believe in life. Is that the belief of a rational people? They are not interested in peace. They don't want to be placated or appeased. They want to destroy us. They want us to live in fear of their strength and their god. They feel inadequate and subordinate because of their own failings and they want us to feel the same at their hand.
For over twenty years, the U.S. walked a peaceful road. We gave these people money. We ignored them when they blew things up. We played nice and let them kick us in the balls when they wanted to. Now we are fighting back and they are losing. We mopped the floor with the Taliban. We strangled Al Qaeda. We cut off a source of funding and a potential source of materiel when we ended Hussein's rule in Iraq. And we are on our way to demonstrating that free market enterprise and democracy can work in the Islamic world. Khadafi gave up when he saw what happened in Iraq. The fundamentalists from that part of the world are on the run and they are running out of places to go. None of this happened because we played nice. We stopped kissing ass and we took the fight to them and now they're running scared.
Now the terrorists have to change their strategy somewhat. They aren't able to directly attack the U.S. or they would have. Instead they will peck away at our allies in the hope that they can intimidate them into telling us to quit and return to the status quo. We will stop pushing back and let them blow up our buildings and our ships and fight their holy war without having to admit they're losing. It's not unlikely that Great Britain and Poland the the Czech Republic and Japan and Australia and our other allies will see terrorist attacks or attempts at attacking. We can only hope that they don't follow the Spanish example.
Consider the attacks we have seen thus far. Four passenger airplanes were hijacked and three of them crashed into two buildings at the cost of about 3,000 civilian lives. They routinely strap bombs to their chests and walk into shopping malls where they blow themselves and anybody nearby into a pile of bloody bits and pieces. They set bombs in passenger trains without regard for women or children or even their own people. One of the main issues in this war and one that is ignored, is that they are not fighting our armies. They are not fighting for territory or money or energy. They are fighting for our destruction and they will not stop killing us when we stop killing them. If they can not attack us directly they will attack our friends. They believe that we will eventually have to give up if none of our allies fight with us. What they don't understand is that America isn't in the business of giving up. They don't understand that we don't need the rest of the world to fight with us because we are capable of fighting on our own, and we are capable of defending ourselves. Should the rest of the world cave in we will continue to stand proud.
