A forum member writes: From a distance, the war on terrorism might be measured as a battle of neoconservatism vs. bin Ladenism. What concerns me is, who's winning and why. What concerns me also, if slightly less, is how the neocons are misunderstood and miscast, and that no defense of their geopolitics has yet been offered around here. ... [T]he neocons' strategy is the best remedy yet advanced for bin Ladenism. Our invasion of Iraq presupposes a positive effect on and diminution of that bin Ladenism, of which I'll say more later. I'll say now that the Iraq preemption was only tenable on the basis of addressing the latter, much like chemotherapy attends to cancer. To me, the WMD issue was always secondary to how a democratic Iraq-and its domino effect- would attenuate bin Laden. Therein rests the neocon's geopolitical merit, and only there. If you have a superior alternative to it, btw, don't be bashful.
Do you agree that neoconservatism is an important and necessary political ideology for the world today? Do you think that it’s the best position to adopt in order to fight terrorism? Read More...
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment