This Civilization is ours to lose!

This post is dedicated to a truly gracious Southern Bell, Gayle.

I've been wracking my brain for almost a year now to fathom the rational behind the Democrat's 'cut and run' attitude (yes, the war was badly executed and we have made innumerable errors) while they know the consequence are catastrophic. Defying logic, democrats counterintuitively want us to lose and surrender and they think it should be our final solution. They want us to give a terrorist state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with us since 1979 and has declared their intention of destroying us at every turn, “a grand bargain” and a nuclear bomb. This is their solution to achieve the so-called ‘stability’. Does “stability doctrine” really relevant or would it really work in the age of globalization and proximity and a post-colonial era?

Does this sound like a paranoid emanation of schizoid brain?

The frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel. What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan, or Indonesia, or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa for example, in Sudan or Somalia--the new frontiers for our security are global...It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It will in all probability, take a generation to defeat.

To me, an Iranian-American who can’t be fooled by the MSM about the nature of the Iranian regime (sorry, I can’t hyperlink the content of my cortical brain to all of my liberal readers who are obsessed with getting their facts from Google) no matter how many smiling mullahs (see murderous Khatamis visit to US) they invite to the National Cathedral in Washington to present a kinder and gentler Islamic Republic of Thugs, all of this seem like a sick joke. So, why such a systematic attempt to distort, deny (Kossacks call it "terrorism canard"), sugar code sober assessments, minimize the truth about the Islamic militancy that has been sweeping the world since 1979 and funded by the Islamic Republic of Kleptocrats? Why are the democrats rooting for us to fail in Iraq at the expense of our national and strategic security and perhaps the end of our Western Civilization, as we know it? I think I have finally figure it out; in a nutshell: Democrats are control freaks.

To begin with, they are consumed with hatred for Bush and second, they are not in complete control of all 3 branches of government. Conceivably, they would get on board with the war on terror if the nation elects a democrat as our commander-in-chief in 2008.

Reasons for US to stay in Iraq are simple and transparent to those who understand our way of life and regard it as sacred as I do. I confess our way of life may not be perfect but it's the best any society has ever created. I see this ideological war not as a ‘clash of civilization’ because civilized society don’t clash. I see this ideological conflict as a continuation of an old struggle between domination of the world by the corrupt Petro-Islamic clergies who have no skill other than brainwashing poor, uneducated masses into drones--who will ensure their cash flow by blowing themselves up in hopes of debauchery in the after-life-- and the modern world that has already gone through this stage in its history. Andrew Coyne explains it much better than I ever can:

What seems to be happening isn't so much a clash of civilizations, as it is a clash of concepts of civilisation: Much of the Islamic world remains largely what philosophers call a "perfectionist" society. On perfectionist views, it is the function of society to promote the moral and spiritual perfection of each person, according to a shared conception of the good life. In a perfectionist society, there is no distinction between church and state, or between law, religion, and morality.The West – or perhaps better, Christendom -- used to be a perfectionist society, oriented around a common and publicly enforced vision of human excellence. That's why we felt the need for things like Crusades and Inquisitions. Then we had schisms, reformations, and whole lot of religious warfare. As Christendom became the West, it (gradually) ceased to be a perfectionist society organized around common moral values (“the good”) and became a society organized around certain liberal principles (“the right.”)What is important to note is that our ancestors in the West didn’t choose our liberal freedoms because they woke up one day and decided that they preferred liberalism over perfectionism. It is that they eventually realized – after centuries of fighting about it – that the only alternative to religious toleration was perpetual war. But religious toleration is the thin edge of the liberal wedge. Once you allow a man to say that he has different Gods than you or that there is no God at all, it is hard to set any principled limit on what anyone can say, about anything at all.Looked at it from this perspective, Fukuyama’s thesis of the "End of History" comes across not as a final triumphalist victory for the West, but as the inevitable consequence of the exhaustion of reasonable alternatives. Liberalism isn't a reflection of our deepest values, but a second-best regime more or less forced upon the societies of the West.This is why, when the protesting Muslims carry placards that read “damn your freedoms,” they are missing the point. Not everyone here likes the consequences of our freedoms, either. It isn’t that we chose liberalism because we thought it would be nice to have high divorce rates, huge drug problems, a debased popular culture and a general lack of respect and civility. That’s just what we’ve ended up with, because the cost of clamping down on these things is too high.Bernard Lewis and other commentators on Islam like to note that Islam has never had a proper reformation or enlightenment. Yet unlike the West, which more or less had to arrive at liberalism by groping through the solution space, Islam has our experience as a guide… It would be extremely unfortunate if the Islamic world had to go through what Europe went through a few hundred years ago. It would be nice if we could just point to our experience and say, look, we tried all the alternatives and they don’t work. This is where you are going to end up, so why not just get started. But that obviously won’t work, because this would be to posit a “stages of civilization” view, which is exactly the sort of moral superiority and arrogance that the muslims are protesting.Where that leaves the world, is very hard to say.

Actually, it’s not that hard to predict where the world is heading given historical facts on Islam. My answer is not for the ones with delicate constitution to accept. In this clash of ideas only one will survive, the other would be completely destroyed, subjugated and compulsory re-educated, as was done to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan and currently in Iran [see systematic Islamization (aka subjugation via Sharia) and Arabization of Iran by the mullahs since 1979 and the Islamic conquest of Iran in the six century]. No peaceful coexistence of West with militant Islam is possible, and all analogies with Cold War are self-deception. Eschatological death-cultists cannot be deterred; they can be only exterminated. This is Manichean war, indeed, just as WWII was. God Bless America.