Thursday, July 28, 2005
Winning Against Terrorists
IRA Ending Longtime 'Armed Campaign' - Yahoo! News
I've been debating with friend over the past few days over what is essentially a difference in our perceptions of the confrontation in which we are engaged with Islamofascists and other extremists who use Islam as a tool to motivate their cause. He looks at "terrorism" as something analagous to crime, drug use and other problems. He seems to feel, as did our government prior to 9/11, that we should contain "terrorism"... much as many pre-Reagan felt that we should contain "communism". My position is that terrorism is a means by which the underfunded wage war, and that our fight is not against terrorism, but a specific enemy, composed of loosely affiliated Islamo-extremist organizations. That it is a war, and that wars are not about containment but about victory and defeat... and that we need to treat it as such, if we are to be on the victory side of that equation.
Anyhow, my point is that the above article illustrates my point. The battle between Irish Republicans and British Loyalists has dragged on for decades... even centuries. The IRA's decision to lay down its arms indicates that, whatever method a side uses to wage war, victory is achievable. Ultimately, it's not about the tactics; it's about winners and losers... and in some cases (this one) compromise*.
*not something I advocate with our current enemies.
But I think after 9/11 the IRA lost a lot of credibility. I think they realized that with the Islamofascists on the scene, they just didn't want to be seen playing in the same league as Bin Laden. I think the peace between them and England is a direct consequence of the war on terror. Ditto progress in Libia, Lebanon, and Pakistan. Next: figuring out what to do about Iran.Post a Comment