... in response to I hate to say this but.........We told ..., posted by Heat on Aug 2, 2004[This message has been edited by Cali James]
Joe Sobran is one of my favorite political writers. He's from the old Taft wing of the Republican party which today seems more liberterian than what the republicans have now become. In the 80's Sobran was the Senior Editor of National Review but had a falling out of sorts with Bill Buckley when the magazine began to change from more traditional conservative themes to a more neo-con view. I remember Buckley was asked years ago, who his favorite writers were and he had mentioned Sobran in his short list. The Conservative movement in the past was always held together under the threat of communism but now that this has gone, the divisions are clearly seen. The neo-cons in the current administration were often times democrats in the 70's and 80's. IMO they were never true believers if you will in the idea of limited government.
TAKING THE BAIT
April 6, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In 1956, the story goes, a little boy named Bobby
Fischer played for the U.S chess championship. In what
seemed to be the middle of the deciding game, he exposed
his queen to capture. His opponent, thinking this a kid's
blunder, grabbed the queen. A moment later Bobby was the
new champ.
Fischer's queen sacrifice is remembered as one of
the most inspired moves in the history of chess. He had
laid a brilliant trap for his unsuspecting opponent, who
took the irresistible bait.
Assuming the official story of 9/11 is more or less
correct, Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda may have been
laying a trap for President Bush, who took the bait. And
is still taking it.
Most of us assumed, as Bush did, that the 9/11
attacks were, like Pearl Harbor, the beginning of a war,
in which more such attacks would follow quickly. We
debated all kinds of measures to prevent another 9/11:
arming airline pilots, sealing our homes with duct tape,
invading Afghanistan and Iraq. We even talked about
terrorists "conquering" the United States.
But there has been no repetition of 9/11. Why should
there be? Our friend Osama planned a brilliant crime on
the cheap, and got a lot of bang for his buck. The U.S.
Government overreacted wildly, striking at the wrong
targets from the U.S. Constitution to Baghdad. Meanwhile,
the Muslim world is inflamed against us, while most of
the West looks at us with misgivings.
Is Osama disappointed today? Aren't this American
freak-out and global uproar just what he must have
foreseen, expected, and therefore intended? Isn't Bush
really serving Osama's purposes even now? The crimes of
9/11 are still paying rich dividends.
For the first time, I really wish Bill Clinton were
still president. As a good Southern politician, he would
have asked himself a savvy question immediately after
9/11: "What do these Muslim sonsabiches want me to do?"
Then he would have avoided the obvious gut reaction and
tried to do something else. As in, don't do just what
your enemy is counting on your doing.
Using the ancient Arab technique of jiu-jitsu, Osama
has provoked the United States to use its own power
against itself. Bush has mistaken a test of intelligence
for a test of will; and he has shown a lot more of the
latter than the former. He has even been outsmarted by
his underlings, who steered him into the war with Iraq
they wanted all along.
Does Bush really think he hurt Osama by overthrowing
his enemy Saddam Hussein? Does he suppose that Osama is
shaking his head sadly over the chaos in Iraq today? Has
it occurred to Bush that he may be following the script
Osama has written for him?
When you find yourself in a hole, they say, stop
digging. But the American way is to keep digging (we call
it "resolve"), say the hole is a tunnel, and assure
everyone that you can already see the light at the end of
it.
Bush predicted that the overthrow of Saddam would
bring on a contagious spread of democracy in the Arab
world. Well, democracy seems to be running a little
behind schedule. It doesn't appear likely to arrive in
Baghdad by June 30.
Someone has challenged me, since I don't care for
Bush's approach, to offer my own "solution" for
terrorism. I wish I had one. But I think of James
Burnham's maxim: "When there's no solution, there's no
problem." Not every evil is a "problem"; some evils just
have to be coped with.
As long as America is determined to be the global
superduperpower, it can expect global resistance, from
both determined enemies and reluctant "allies." Is it
worth the price? At what point will this country stop
blustering and decide to come to terms with its enemies?
The Soviet Union began with a grand dream of
abolishing private property. It tried, hard, by making
all sorts of normal economic exchange ("capitalism")
illegal. But black markets thrived, and the rulers were
soon forced to come to terms with them or face mass
starvation.
Some forms of behavior simply can't be suppressed
for long. Given the way the world is now organized, what
we call terrorism may be one of these. Or, from another
point of view, terrorism may be a "solution" to the
problem of the state.
In Iraq, Bush has tried to decapitate the Hydra by
ousting Saddam. As usual, the Hydra has only sprouted
more heads. With an enemy like Bush, does Osama need
friends?
