Over the years there's been some good stuff appearing on American Thinker. The last couple of day hasn't been among them. On April 17 James Lewis
The world has stood by and done exactly nothing while jihad war has broken out in the least stable parts of the Middle East. For those whose feelings have not yet been blunted by the endless truck bombs in civilian markets in Iraq and Libya, the deliberate targeting of children in Syria, and Jihad murder attacks in Europe --- not to mention 9/11 -- please note that a car bomb at a bus depot in Aleppo, Syria, has just killed more than 100 people, including an estimated fifty children. The world has stood by and done exactly nothing while jihad war has broken out in the least stable parts of the Middle East, in what we know are proxy wars between Shi'ite and Sunni power blocs, led by Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab Gulf states versus the Shi'ites of Iran, through proxies like Hizb’allah, the Houthis of Yemen, and Assad.Okay, what exactly does the writer think the world - in which he means the U.S. - should do? Creating a coalition of nations to fix this is pie in the sky thinking, since those nations - Muslim nations - who should be involved are equally guilty of atrocities against innocents, especially if they're Jews or Christians.
But he wants Europe to step in because Europe is as rich as the United States. James needs - like so many of these authors - to start reading more books. Europe is on the verge of an economic disaster, they're breeding themselves out of existence, and Europe is incapable of feeding itself, fueling itself, defending itself and economically incapable of arming itself.
And he thinks they're responsible for fixing Syria!
Boots on the ground hasn't worked well in the past. Dumping bombs of varying types hasn't worked. If we invade Americans will want to know when the boys will be back home. We've seemingly taken up permanent residence in Afghanistan and Iraq with no stable fix in sight.
This desire to step into others affairs and "help" the innocent is something we all have in varying degrees as human beings. - especially when we're young and idealistic, with little experience in life, or the intelligence and insights brought on by time. But once we become adults - we have to stop and view situations with definition and clarity, and sometimes that clarity leads to unpleasant conclusions.
- This nightmare is not of our making.
- There is no national interest were we benefit from interfering and can only generate negatives we don't need.
- This is a religious war, no matter what the author claims, and it isn't ignorance to say so.
- We have no dog in this hunt and need to stay home.
Let's try and develop some clarity about this. If Assad wins - it's my opinion the west will be better off because he'll be so busy fixing the country's economy and infrastructure he'll have no time for terrorists, except to kill them. If he loses who knows what kind of maniac - or as in Libya, mainiacs - will take his place and Syria will be another hot bed of terrorist activity, just like Iran, who Jimmy Carter is directly responsible for. Libya is a disaster and falls into the lap of Hillary and Obama, along with Egypt. How has all of that worked out?
This is a religious problem of their own making, and they will have to fix it on their own - let's stay home and remember "the business of America is business", not social engineering at home or abroad.
These Muslim nations of the Middle East are nothing short of Medieval tribal societies with modern weaponry, modern communications and transportation following a violent criminal philosophy masquerading as a religion - Islam. Once we finally come to grips with that everything else becomes easy to understand.
Definition leads to clarity. Clarity leads to understanding. Understanding leads to good decision making. Then and only then can there be harmony. And as long as Islam is dominent in these countries there will be no harmony and anyone who jumps into the middle of it will not fare well.
One final thought. These radical Islamic movements aren't new. They were there under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. So how did the Ottoman Empire handle it? They killed them! Apparently that's what works, and as far as I can tell - hundreds of years of history has shown that's the only thing that's worked.
Is this what the author thinks we should do?
One more final thought. Did it ever occur to anyone that in ten years some of these countries may not even exist?