There’s a number of interesting editorials today. I don’t agree fully with all of them, but the arguments are worth sharing.
Max Boot, writing for the LA Times reminds us that appeasement didn’t work against Hitler and it won’t work against the fascist Islam we’re fighting today. He also reminds us that, before the U.S. entered the war, there were many in the intelligentsia and elsewhere who favored the Nazis or the Communists over British or American style democracy.
Ed Koch, writing for Real Clear Politics, says this is a war of civilizations and note that no major Islamic cleric has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden. He also believes radical Islam has already won across much of Europe as those nations offer only words but not action in this war and refuse to stand with us in Iraq.
Anatol Lieven, writing for the Financial Times, says we need Muslim help to win the war on terror. More specifically, we need to exploit natural rifts in the Islamic world rather than pretending all Muslims and all non-democratic Muslim nations are essentially the same. Lieven focuses on Iran as a potential ally in fighting Sunni-led terrorism.
As I said, I can’t say I agree completely with all of these. But I agree with the thought process--the belief that our enemies must be confronted, that we should worry about finding ways to stop them rather than finding ways to change ourselves in hopes of appeasing them. But there is not only one way to attack. There are many ideas. And the more people coming up with them, the better.