Er der nogen, der begriber det større billede i Mellemøsten? Altså af dem, der overhovedet gider gå op i det længere? Michael Ledeen mener, at edderkoppen midt i spindet er Iran. Man skal holde godt fast under læsningen, det ER Mellemøsten. Den nye stærke mand “General Sisi, has some pretty impressive Islamist credentials…” og det er bare begyndelsen. (foto: Ledeen i København, februar 2008) – Ayaan Hirsi Ali – også American Enterprise Institute – skrev ligeledes i går en oversigtsartikel: So much for the Arab Spring.)
It’s hard to get our minds around the dimensions of the slaughter underway in the Middle East and Africa, and harder still to see that the battlefields of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria and Mali are pieces in a global war in which we are targeted…… So there’s a global war, we’re the main target of the aggressors, and our leaders don’t see it and therefore have no idea how to win it.
Any serious attempt to understand what’s going on has to begin by banning the word “stability,” much beloved of diplomats and self-proclaimed strategists. If anything is fairly certain about our world, it’s that there is no stability, and there isn’t going to be any. Right now, the driving forces are those aimed at destroying the old order, and their targets (the old regimes, very much including the United States) have until recently showed little taste to engage as if their survival depended on it. But things are changing, as always.
The war is easily described: there is a global alliance of radical leftists and radical Islamists, supported by a group of countries that includes Russia, at least some Chinese leaders, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. The radicals include the Sunni and Shi’ite terrorist organizations and leftist groups, and they all work seamlessly with the narcotics mafias. Their objective is the destruction of the West, above all, of the United States.[..]
Let’s get outside these little boxes and look at the big board. There’s an alliance plotting against us, bound together by two radical views of the world that share a profound, fundamental hatred of us. If they win, it’s hell to pay, because then we will be attacked directly and often, and we will be faced with only two options, winning or losing. It’s War, You Idiots, Michael Ledeen
Why Was Enoch Powell a Racist and Not Charles de Gaulle?
The French and British empires historically had different premises, with the former (in the Roman tradition) focused more on culture and the latter more on race, hierarchy, and family. This difference took many forms: one finds meals of bifteck-frites in tiny towns in the former French colony of Niger but little English food even in the cities of neighboring Nigeria. Léopold Senghor of Senegal became a significant French poet and cultural figure whereas Rabindranath Tagore of Bengal could never transcend his Indian origins.
Charles de Gaulle was Time magazine’s man of the year in 1959, the year he delivered his anti-Arab remarks. Likewise, French and British politicians responded to the initial post-World War II immigration of non-Western peoples to their countries in characteristically different ways. Charles de Gaulle, arguably the most important leader of France since Napoleon, focused on culture while Enoch Powell, a rising star in the United Kingdom, emphasized race. Here are their speeches on the topic, starting with de Gaulle (1890-1970), who spoke on March 5, 1959: [..]
(1) These two statements have much wider support today than when they were delivered, 54 and 45 years ago, respectively. (2) At the same time, no major politician today would dare speak as directly as these two did back then. (3) Islam, today’s emphasis, is nowhere even hinted at. De Gaulle spoke of “turbans and jellabiyas,” not Shari’a and honor killings. Powell referred to “marked physical differences, especially of colour,” not Islamic supremacism or female genital mutilation. Daniel Pipes.