Charles Krauthammer

[Etienne]

Cet individu est notamment éditorialiste à TIME Magazine, qu'il m'arrive parfois de lire, puisque j'y suis encore abonné, et le monsieur me tappe seriously sur le système. J'avais imaginé qu'il était néocon, vu ses écrits, et j'ai eu la confirmation en allant sur le site de TIME : contributions au Weekly Standard, éxegèse d'un bouquin de I. Kristol, pour des infos encore plus rafinées voir ici : http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krautha…,559573,00.html.

Je vous fais profiter de sa dernière contribution, et je vous demande sérieusement comme on peut écrire à ce point dans le vide, dans un magazine qui n'est pas sensé être du PQ.

[Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe…] … Why That's Ridiculous

For the next decade, whenever there is a terrorist attack anywhere in the world, there will be those blaming it on America: if only America had not been distracted from the war on terrorism by the war in Iraq, if only America had not stirred Muslim resentment and increased al-Qaeda recruitment by invading Iraq.

Nonsense. The "distraction" argument is the most obvious nonsense. What exactly is the U.S. not doing in the war on terrorism that it would be doing if it weren't in Iraq? We are supporting a fiercely antiterrorist democratic government in Afghanistan, hunting al-Qaeda in the impossible terrain on the Pakistani frontier, coordinating with just about every secret service in the world to disrupt terrorist communications, movement and funding. What is it about Iraq that "distracts"?

As for the recruitment claim, when was the seminal period of al-Qaeda recruitment--indeed, the period during which it created its entire worldwide infrastructure? The 1990s. No invasion of Iraq. No invasion of Afghanistan. The Clinton years saw the most open, accommodating, apologetic U.S. foreign policy since World War II. In fact, the 1990s was the decade of Muslim rescue: the U.S. intervened militarily, and decisively, to save three Muslim peoples--the Bosnians, the Kosovars and the Kuwaitis--from conquest and catastrophe. Il doit penser à Srebrenica, je suppose. Yet it was precisely during that era of good feeling that al-Qaeda not only recruited for but also conceived, planned and set in motion the worst massacre of Americans in history. So much for the connection between American perfidy and anti-American terrorism.

Al-Qaeda always invents some excuse, some historical injury to justify its barbarism. Today Iraq, yesterday Palestine and, when all else fails, Andalusia, a bin Laden staple that refers to the Muslim loss of Spain to Ferdinand and Isabella (in 1492!). Various casus belli are served up as conditions change. Only the gullible and the appeasers buy them. Now we're told that the Iraq invasion has increased al-Qaeda recruiting.

The first thing to be said is that no one knows. Unlike the Bolsheviks, al-Qaeda does not hand out numbered party-registration cards. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there are Muslims energized by Iraq--who were not energized by Western colonialism, American imperialism, Hollywood decadence, the Roosevelt-Saud alliance, the Afghan war, Zionism, feminism or other alleged outrages against Islam. They were living contentedly, tending their shoe shop in Riyadh, and all of a sudden they discovered the joys of jihad and the lure of heavenly posthumous sex awaiting them at the other end of a suicide bombing.

The fact is that the war on terrorism is a very long war. It is not decided by a battle here or there. It would not have been won by stopping in Afghanistan and spending the rest of our lives going cave to cave looking for bin Laden and his henchmen. Kill him and shut the cave, yet jihadism would continue.

It would continue because it is a sickness incubated within Arab/ Islamic culture, a toxic combination of repression, corruption, intolerance and fanaticism, fed by tyrannical regimes eager to deflect popular anger from themselves onto the American infidel. Régimes dont les soutiens sont? Until that political culture changes fundamentally, jihadism will thrive.

Transforming that political culture begins with the liberation of Iraq. Not just replacing a murderous thug regime with a popularly elected, pluralistic government but also creating a catalyst for similar transformations elsewhere. We have already seen such an effect in Lebanon--a democratic uprising that even Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, no friend of the U.S., admitted was a domino effect from Iraq. Similarly, Iraq's transformation has helped advance women's suffrage in Kuwait, competitive elections in Egypt and even democratic stirrings in so inhospitable a place as Syria.

On 9/11, the U.S. was rudely injected into a Muslim civil war--the jihadists are intent on conquering the entire region and re-establishing an ancient caliphate--except that only the jihadist side was really fighting. By taking the fight to the Arab/ Islamic heartland, the U.S. has forced Muslims to commit. The most remarkable effect of the wars to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq is that, whereas on 9/11 we stood alone against the terrorists, today there are two large and energized Muslim populations--with legitimate governments building armed forces--engaged in the same struggle against jihadism as we are. Ou comment dire tout et son contraire en deux paragraphes.

It is those allies who are critical in ultimately winning the war on terrorism. The terrorists may have recruited their new Atta, now splattered on the walls of the Baghdad mosque he has suicide-bombed. We have recruited tens of millions of Afghan and Iraqi Muslims--with Lebanese and others to follow--opposing that Atta as they attempt to build decent, moderate, tolerant societies.

I'll take our recruits.

[melodius]

Krauthammer officie au Time depuis des dizaines d'années.

Perso, je l'adore, il est tellement grandiosement con qu'il ne peut que desservir sa cause.

[Etienne]

Perso, je l'adore, il est tellement grandiosement con qu'il ne peut que desservir sa cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mon inimitié avec lui date d'avant mon adhésion au libéralisme, c'est une vieille rengaine.