This "editorial" is not well argued. It is not enough to be feared. It works only if you are willing to use ultimate force, like Saddam Hussain did to maintain through fear, it worked for Saddam for 30 years without a crack. You can think of hundreds of other examples.

But the US is not willing. We must as well be loved, or at least respected for our ideals and morality, or it will turn out poorly. A current example is Israel, certainly strong, certainly feared, but fear is not enough to provide safety.

The US has relative safety now. To keep it, of course we must carry a big stick and use it if necessary, but we must also speak softly and act softly as well.

Syria, for one, seems to be reacting fairly well: giving speeches about how terrible the US is and calling for various anti-West protests, while quietly getting rid of Iraqi remnants, not allowing border crossings of armed groups in either direction, and cracking down on some of its own more inflammatory groups.

In Iran, the elected part of the government is watching while the unelected "Supreme Council" of clerics seems to be sending its special troops toward, if not actually into, Iraq: if it continues, troops loyal to the elected side may be able to keep the fanatic troops out - and without the fanatics, the Council can be quietly deposed.

And Marc, in case you haven't noticed, the "big stick" is being sheathed. The Navy and Marines are rturning to pre-war duties, Iraqis are being assured they can set up their own government although we will keep the peace until they do, we are not invading Syria and/or Iraq (or Saudi Arabia)... Takes time, but it is starting.

I am not arguing that fear alone is the key. But rather that it is often quite useful for adversaries and potential adversaries to understand what you are capable of. And, indeed, respect can be generated from healthy fear.

False choice: One can either be feared, or loved. "Respect" has a fear component, even if it's just fear of disapproval, and "Love" can't exist without respect. Think about it, and it's clear fear and love are not only not mutually exclusive, but are actually aspects of each other...needing, of course, natural and rational balanced reason in all things.

Oh, I don't know. I often feared my father getting angry with me if I did something wrong as a child, yet I both loved and respected him. I fear being pulled over by the highway partol, but I also respect the police, and even have friends who are in law enforcement.

I think that there is a visceral reaction to my usage of the word "fear" that misses the basic point.

Indeed, is not part of the reason to have a military for the expressed purpose of having those who might seek to harm us or our interests to fear the consequences of dealing with that military might?

If the Taliban, which hated the United States and its culture, had feared the US military a bit more, 9-11 might never have happened, as al Qaeda would not have had Afghanistan as a base from which to operate.

If the Taliban, which hated the United States and its culture, had feared the US military a bit more, 9-11 might never have happened, as al Qaeda would not have had Afghanistan as a base from which to operate.

Yes, this may be true, but the actual terrorists, of course, lived and trained in America. I'm not so sure they needed Afghanistan that much.

But they weren't "home grown"--al Qaeda needed a base of operations from which to train and plan for the 911 attack. Afghanistan provided such a base of operations.

I think you're both right, Bri and PoliBlogger--a friendly country legitimizes the terrorist, and he wastes no energy/money/time avoiding the local law enforcement...so it's that much easier to set up cells in victim-nations, as the 9/11 perps had done...Afghan papers make you a paper trail good enought o cover the psuedo-friendlies, like Egypt and Saudi Ararbia... "Look, FBI/CIA, I had to give 'em a passport, they're immigres from the Nation of Afghanistan!" Octopus with tentacles.

I'm surprised that nobody disagreed with me :,)

The question of al Qaeda without Afghanistan is an interesting one. I think they'll do just fine without a national home. Here's my theory.

I actually believe bin Laden is pretty smart. He used (first the Sudan) Afghanistan to train thousands of al Qaeda in his camps, while the country was hospitable. Then he chose the timing for 9/11. The hard-core al Queda were prepared to leave, bin Laden knew the US reaction would be severe. He hoped for it in fact. He wanted the US to outrage the Arab world.

Now is the next stage, the start of widespread recruiting into a much larger al Queda. No need for any action for a while.

I think he was staggered by the ferocity of the reaction. His aim is to demoralize the West, and crash its financial system. What he did was infuriate the West, knock the remaining bubble out of speculation (and, this did hurt a lot of portfolios), set a foundation for real, non-Clintonesqe economic growth, strengthen American nationalism, patriotism, and military power, mortally wound American leftism/pacifism and the left wing of the Democratic party, start the ball rolling to shake the corruption out of the U.N. and western capitalism, create a huge upsurge in Judeo /Christian personal behavior values, make GWB, T. Blair, A. Sharon, and all other pro-western hawks into cultural heroes, create a wave of world interest in Islam which quickly became hatred and revulsion as the tenets of Wahabbism and Jihad became known, and cost his movement two enormous nations, one of which has the second largest world oil reserves. He caused his lands to be surrounded with armed, angry, and very lethal infidels, exposed and thus fatally weakened reactionary anti-American elements in the governments of France, Germany, and Russia, and created a western miltary just itching for an excuse to knock over the next set of terrorist-friendly despotic regimes just as soon as OBL and AQueda gives another excuse.

I think OBL's biggest problems now are other Arab regimes, who are terrified that he'll get them blamed for anything else he does. I think he's through, except for some retail "pride" killing here and there, from time to time. And hell, we;re even getting used to THAT, so it ain't so terrorizing as it used to be.

Arafat, remember, turned Israel into a powerhouse of moral and military power. And he now lives only at the beck and call of Israel, which can squash him anytime.

Barbarians will alway vanquish the civil, for they need not follow any rules.

They would do well to fear the U.S. I would like one of these "barbarians" to convince me why we shouldn't nuke their asses right now. I'd rather be dead, and take them with me, than live under Shar'ia, and I'll be damned before I see my sister subjugated under Shar'ia.

These loonies had better start fearing me and my kind in this country. They had better get through their thick skulls the only reason Mecca and Medina aren't radioactive slag is our previous forbearance. Our patience is wearing very thin.

MaxDarkSide,

The barbarians won when they fought with similar technology but with a more ruthless attitude or with better tech. (like re-curved horn bows, or stirrups).

The civil lost when they out-sourced their defence (Rome, Ottoman empires) and over-leveraged their expenses compared to their roi on exploited lands. Many examples of this: to finance armies abroad (think England into France in the 1300's).

The barbarians don't always win. It's just that when they (sometimes) do it is VERY newsworthy and remembered for a long time. (But then so are the lessons we learn from the mistakes of the conquered.) When the barbarians get thrashed nobody ever wrote it down. It was a minor war, the expected winner won.

jfb3 makes obscure but very telling point...there is a load of subjectivity in olden history. The Khans, Tamerlane, Attila all recorded by their enemies only, and due to shock at having been defeated...but the barbs bever made it into central Europe, and never made their victories "stick"....the invasions are interludes only in vast stretches of time where the "unexpected" DIDN'T happen. And this, too, MaxDarkside, when the barbarians push the civil hard enough, the civil then usually "out-barbarian" the barbarians. It just takes enough incentive, that's all.

I'm glad somebdy has read Machiavelli. If these people understand that the next attack could result in the nuclear anihalation of Mecca and Medina, no amount of religious fervor will make them attack, because doing so would be the end of their religion. Without the Haj (sp?) Muslims are in deep spiritual trouble.

Buddy we have a different world view. Read bin Laden's old stuff. The US was not on his screen. Nor was Israel. He just did not care about anybody outside the Islamic world.

His enemy was (and still is) the Arab states. He wanted to bring them all down. He wanted pure Islamic rule for the (one) Arab nation. Espesially Saudi Arabia, which should be the center of holiness so was most painfully corrupt.

He didn't lose any countries. He was just using Afghanistan - they are not Arab - hence the many Afghan reports of al Queda's condecending to the Afghans, and it served his purposes for the time. And he was NOT a fan of Saddam Hussein.

If I am right, bin Laden is pretty happy right now (unless he is too sick to care). In his world view, the ball is now rolling to make Iraq an Islamic republic. One down, 10 to go.

The discussion about barbarians bothers me. The line between the good guys and the bad guys is not so clear. England was pretty good at horrible massicres in setting up their empire. The near extinction of the American Indians is a painful fact I'd rather not think about a lot. Going back, what we now call genocide was common in classical times, the ancient Greeks for instance sometimes killing all inhabitants of conquered cities.

I'm not being critical. That was then. Morality has evolved. Today the US and the rest of the civilized world is not happy to use ultimate force. In particular, nobody will annihalate Mecca and Medina, under any circumstances.

marc,
"In particular, nobody will annihalate Mecca and Medina, under any circumstances."

While probably true, I can't gaurantee it.

Only 60 years ago we threatened Japan with total cultural obliteration. (And gave them two examples.)

When cultures collide and one claims to want to remove the other from existence permanent solutions come to mind more often, and often sooner.