Allow me to begin by extending my hand in a firm, virtual handshake to my sparring partner in this, the first ever VRWC Blog debate. CL is a gentleman of exquisite taste in the fairer sex and an American Patriot of unquestionable dedication. On this particular issue we may disagree, but I believe our hopes for the future of the United States of America are one and the same.

The Question: One of the conservative arguments against the current prosecution on the war on terrorism is the fact that, as conservatives, we should not be involved in nation building In Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please explain your position with respect to the fact that after our post WWII reconstruction efforts , Germany and Japan have become our 4th and 5th largest trading partners. The exchange of goods accounts for 10.6% of all of the United States foreign trade.To put this in perspective, China accounts for 12.0% of all U.S. foreign trade (2008 numbers).

———

Preliminarily, I’d challenge the premise that a “conservative” argument against the war is that we should not be involved in “nation-building”. For the reasons that follow, I tend to think of “nation-building” not as an end itself, but rather as simply another means to the legitimate end of eliminating credible threats to the safety of the American People, which for purposes of this debate I am assuming is quite an unimpeachable position.

WWII and our current foreign hostilities are as different as they are the same. They are the same, I believe, in the sense that Germany’s actions and intentions prior to our official involvement following Pearl Harbor could not realistically be seen as isolated to that continent. At one point or another, sooner or later, the United States would have had to deal with the German Army and said dealing would have involved weapons of war wielded by men in uniform. Adolph Hitler, had he run his course in Europe and accomplished his goals there, would have eventually set his sights on the sleeping giant across the pond.

Doctrinal Islam (DI) is exactly the same. In fact, DI is far more committed to the annihilation of the United States than ever was Hitler. Taking the leaders of Al-Qaeda, Syria, Iraq (pre-invasion), Iran, et als. at their word and paying heed to their own actions, one is hard pressed to question their sincerity and dedication to accomplishing that goal. More pressingly today, however, is the fact that Germany did not have the means to deliver a crushing blow to the US without leaving their shores. Is it really debatable that sooner or later DI in one form or another will not have to leave their house to inflict such devastation on us?

As a general matter, I am Clausewitzian and believe that any hostility should be executed in total war fashion, bringing to bear the whole of our resources in an unyielding and unrelenting fashion so as to completely destroy our enemy’s ability to retaliate. Yes, this is the only humane way to wage war.

That said I do not see how conscientious “nation-building” thereafter is anathema to the long-term goal of ensuring the safety of the American People to the best of our ability. In fact, I believe it would be derelict in the light of history to leave such a volatile region void of leadership; that leadership, however, should be of a character as close to the founding principles of this country as is humanly possible. To the victor go the spoils.

That this in reality may not have happened to our liking, however, is not a mark against the idea of nation-building but rather it is a manifestation of our lack of will to see that the job is done. If I may, the outcome in Vietnam is as stark an example as you will find of our modern national moral failure to see that the job is done. It and the present situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are symptoms of a general failure of national will and not the result of ill-advised policy. We “failed” in Vietnam not because the effort itself was in vain but rather because we forgot what it meant to “win”. National policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan should be directed with that failure in mind. We should define what it means to “win” and pursue that goal as if there were no tomorrow, because to not do so may enable just that. If “nation-building” is a necessary part of accomplishing that goal, so be it.

On the differences between Germany/Japan and Iraq/Afghanistan, I would start by noting that early 20th century Germany and Japan were technologically modern functioning societies compared to 21st century Iraq and Afghanistan. We can banter day and night over how “secular” and “modern” Saddam’s Iraq was but the fact remains that it was nonetheless a society rooted in ancient Islam and run as a Theocracy. Afghanistan is and has been for centuries the graveyard of Empires; a land of warlords and repression virtually untouched by modernity. Among others it is for this reason that such places, sworn and serious enemies of liberty in general and the United States in particular, are legitimate targets for American weapons of war should events occur that make it more likely than not that an offensive of any character could claim the life of an American.

As it were, such events have occurred and occurred and occurred again. Bluntly, any mediocre student of Islam’s history not only knows that war on the infidel was the way of Qur’an but also that war on the infidel is the way of the Qur’an. Their goals have not changed in over 1300 years. Playing ostrich in the face of these facts is nothing less than a dereliction of duty.

I don’t know if Iraq and/or Afghanistan will ever rise to a partnership level similar to Germany or Japan vis-à-vis the United States and quite frankly, I don’t care. As far as I’m concerned, such an outcome would be merely icing on the cake. The “cake” consists of eliminating any and every opportunity Islam has to obtain and use weapons of war (including commercial airliners and underwear bombs) against Americans and using all the whole of our resources to “build” a successor nation that is the least likely to threaten the United States in the future. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to me, have never been primarily about the welfare of the people of those countries; having normal, human sympathy for the oppressed I do, but such considerations run a distant second to the safety of the people in this country. Jingoism it is not to value the life of one’s countrymen over the lives of others.

——-

I’m at 1000 words now (which is far more abuse than any person of common decency deserves) and since I was, er, fortunate enough to have drawn the short straw to open the first ever VRWC Blog debate, I’m going to end here and throw it over to the man from whose intrepid imagination this exercise sprung.

You, dear readers, as I, should anticipate a far more coherent and intelligent response from CL than the rambling you have just encountered. As I understand it, CL’s response will be posted on his blog, “The Classic Liberal”, by noon on Tuesday. I’ll be back here with a short reply at noon on Thursday.

Taking full advantage of the wonders of the internet as we are, please be sure and stop by the following sites for commentary on and ridicule of yours truly’s opening salvo:

Motor City Times / WyBlog / Republican Redefined / Washington Rebel / Makes My Brain Itch / Conservative Hideout

En Garde CL!

Russ

Update on Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 2:08PM by Russ

As an aside, I apologize for having the format for the debate incorrect. Every Sunday the two debate participants, in this case CL and myself, will answer, respond and reply to Question 1 on Sunday and then answer, respond and reply to Question 2 on Tuesday and the same for Question 3 on Thursday.

It takes me a while to comprehend simple tasks. I only learned to use the toaster like a week ago. Forgive me.

Please follow this link to read the CL’s response to my initial answer.

REPLY:

Regardless of where the concept began, the question is not whether it corresponds to how we do things here but rather whether attempting to “create” a more cooperative, non-threatening successor nation is a better idea for the safety of Americans than the status quo. Suffice to say, I believe that history has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that leaving things alone in the Middle East leads directly and inevitably to dead American civilians. That is what is unacceptable.

I am in no way a fan of central planning in any form here at home. Call me an “originalist” and “Hayekian”. But that doesn’t change the fact that sober reflection on the ancient and modern history of Islam leads to only one inescapable conclusion; left to their own devices, the most ruthless, fanatical members of the cult will rise to the top and threaten the lives of American citizens, directly or indirectly. I would just as soon have preferred a true and total military occupation of Iraq to the piecemeal cobbling in which we’ve been engaged for seven years. But poor execution of a good idea should in no way disparage the justness and rightness of the idea itself. We’ve done a piss poor job of following the Constitution as well; that doesn’t make the document itself any less magnificent.

I believe doing what is necessary to prevent the wanton murder of American citizens is putting America first. I do not dispute that our own house is far from in order. But I also know that closing our eyes to the neighbor’s plans to blow up our house while we dust inside will only lead to our house being blown up. The “perpetual quagmire” would not exist if our national will hadn’t been rendered impotent over the last six decades. We beat, nearly to the point of extinction, three of the world’s most sophisticated armies in less than five years in WWII. The only reason we haven’t duplicated the feat in the Middle East is because we have not been willing to do so.

“Nation-building” is as much a part of the fight to eradicate the threat of DI as are predator drones and cluster bombs. It is not having the national will to see that the job is done that has made the execution thereof the less than stellar exercise it has become.

Update on Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 3:15PM by Russ

One of our moderators for the debate, Detroit Rock City Steve, has created a sweet logo and pasted it prominently on his site:

Image Courtesy of Motor City Times-Click to follow link

Be sure and check out our other moderator, Scratch at Makes My Brain Itch who has created his own sweet logo:

Image Courtesy of Makes My Brain Itch-Click to follow link

Sweet.

Steve and Scratch came up with the great question that started this round and will be moderating comments and preparing the second question for Tuesday’s Round 2. I will be updating this thread with links to the punditry as they arrive.

I’m thinking we may have to start a side “Battle of the Logos”…

Incoming!

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 4:46PM by Russ

Virgil at the Reb weighs in on the debate.

The Great Man at TCOTS will weigh in shortly.

Theo’s on top of it. (Gratuitous Boob War link warning)