Fighting It– Getting at the Roots

 What about the roots of Islamo-fascism. Do our policies attack those roots? 

At Cox and Forkum’s excellent website, there is a posting:


…..In WWII we did not stop with soldiers at the front lines; nor did we stop at disrupting their supply lines. We took the fight all the way to the weapons factories and the command centers from which the war emanated.

….But why not? Why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad and his Supreme Leader sign an unconditional surrender? For that is exactly what needs to happen. …it’s nonetheless apparent that he does not see the crucial necessity of totally defeating Iran, which is not only killing Americans in Iraq, which Bush freely admits, but is also the primary state sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism. He is still narrowly focused on Iraq as if it’s not part of a regional, state-sponsored proxy war. Remember the Bush Doctrine and not tolerating state sponsors of terrorism? I do….The only way to secure Iraq–and, more importantly, America–is to topple the Iranian regime. …

….And here are two articles that make the case for taking the war to Iran. The first is from Real Clear Politics: To Win in Baghdad, Strike at Tehran by Robert Tracinski.

If [Bush] wants to succeed in Iraq, he has to do something now. So we can expect President Bush to go big, ordering a “surge” in US combat troops in Iraq.But there is another, far more effective option: go wide.

Going wide means recognizing that Iraq is just one front in a regional war against an Islamist Axis centered in Iran–and we cannot win that war without confronting the enemy directly, outside of Iraq.

Going wide means recognizing that the conflict in Iraq is fueled and magnified by the intervention of Iran and Syria. One of the reasons the Iraq Study Group report flopped was that its key recommendation–its one unique idea–was for America to negotiate with Iran and Syria in order to convince these countries to aid in the “stabilization” of Iraq. This proposal wasn’t so much argued to death as it was laughed to death, because it is clear that Iran and Syria have done everything they can to de-stabilize Iraq, supporting both sides of the sectarian conflict there. …

Every day, we see the disastrous results of fighting this war narrowly inside Iraq while ignoring the external forces that are helping to drive it. …

Going wide also means recognizing that more is at stake in this war than just the fate of Iraq. This is a war to determine who and what will dominate the Middle East. Will this vital region be dominated by a nuclear-armed Iran, working to spread Islamic fascism? Or will America be able to exert its military influence and political ideals in the region?

This second article I’ve linked to twice before but it deserves revisiting. From The Objective Standard: “No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John Lewis:

We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran–and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth–to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights.

Dr. Lewis posted a follow-up to this article at Jihad Watch.

Islam itself is stateless, meaning that it respects no borders. It was designed precisely to rise above ethnic / tribal / clan groups, to unite all those who submit to Allah. We have to adopt the same attitude, only with freedom and individual rights as our central ideals. By defining the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism — meaning, government imposition of Islamic Law — we exempt no such state from our reach, and yet allow every state a chance to avoid the title and our action.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: