The Millennium War
Austin Bay has written an article well worth reading. The whole thing is great, but this bit is especially interesting:
In September 2001, I suggested we call this hideous conflict the Millennium War, a nom de guerre that captures both the chronological era and the ideological dimensions of the conflict. If there is one mistake we’ve made in fighting this war, it’s the way we’ve soft-pedaled the ideological dimensions, and that soft-pedaling has blurred our goals. This really is a fight for the future, a battle between our free, open political system and the unholy alliance of despots and millenarian Islamofascists whose very existence depends on denying liberty.
Recognizing the ideological component as an essential feature of the war indicates the most desirable End State to the war would have two features: (1) democratic nations that police terrorism, instead of promoting it or seeding it; (2) an Islamic clerisy that understands its role on Earth is spiritual guidance and education, not temporal political control.
A large order? The task is absolutely huge, but so was World War II, when heavy history fell on ‘the greatest generation.’ It’s this generation’s turn to accept the challenge of building free nation states and protecting Muslim moderates, or we will face terrible destructive consequences.
I agree that the Bush administration has failed to fully define the conflict we face, as well as whose side we are on. I believe firmly that we are on the side of the people of Iraq, and Afghanistan. We are on the side of the people of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria as well. The enemy is a variety of tyrants with a broad array of ideologies to hide behind. In the end, they have one philosophy however, the barrel of a gun.
Yes they are vicious. Yes they are motivated. No, they will not win. We have beaten worse bad guys and we will beat them as well.
