Poke Your Eye Out

I don't have a source to know if Gandhi actually said it, but I always remember the quote from the film in which he said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

I was raised (obviously) in a Christian dominated culture so the idea of an "eye for an eye" was outside of my realm.

I mention this because some folks (not all, important qualifier "some") have said that it is perfectly appropriate for the Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons because the Middle East publishes cartoons that are so much worse.

So we all go blind. If Gandhi's more philosophical reproach doesn't work for you, how about this:

"Billy called me bad name so I called him a bad name back."

We're supposed to be the adults and the ones setting an example here.

Other rebuttals include "well, it is good that the folks who hold these views are being fleshed out."

You know, when you orchestrate an event to "flesh out" it's generally a good idea to have your ducks in a row before you do it, so it doesn't turn into a goat rodeo when you do. I am reminded of the police preparedness before the second Rodney King trial announcement was released, and the unprecedented delay in releasing the verdict so that the National Guard could be on the ready and all police were positioned in place. In addition, it was determined that it would not be released during rush hour and timed for release at a time when the fewest people would be on the street.

Perhaps the Danish newspaper could have warned their government so they could have had their embassies on stand-by and their troops on full alert. Otherwise, it would have been irresponsible, if they knew the kind of backlash it would cause.

There are only two ways to interpret the lack of warning:
1. They didn't care.
2. They didn't expect the reaction.

Both say a lot about their actions and the lack of responsibility they demonstrated when they decided to exercise their right to freedom of the press.

Depending on the one you choose, it would seem to contradict the idea that "they did this to identify the terrorists so we could strike against them."

The fact that Europe has only a few thousand troops in the region, would seem to indicate that they were perfectly happy (as usual) to allow the U.S. to clean up their messes.

Others have brought up the timing and are suspicious that this event was orchestrated to deflect from other problems needing our attention, such as Iran.

To that: A great big DUH!

Every mistake or mis-step we take is going to be used as ammunition by our enemies. The thing that has been unique about the War on Terror (that begin back in the Vietnam era) is that with all the screeching about the freedom of the press, our government has been unable to properly conduct the most important aspect of winning a war: Control of information. 80% of the success of a war effort is the war of information.

The terrorists know they cannot win a conventional war, which is why they've never attempted to fight one. What they've been trying to create, from the beginning, is a classic grassroots revolutionary element to "spark" an uprising among the Muslim world--they've been poking at us to force us to make a mistake so they can use it to create that "spark."

None of this should come as a surprise as it comes directly from the Anarchists Playbook. Anyone wishing to understand that playbook should read about the Anarchist Movements of the 19th Century. It's all in there and OBL and Al Qa'eda have been running their plays by the book from the beginning. There is nothing unique or strange about the way they've handled it.

Perhaps that is why I find this whole brouhaha so disconcerting (besides the obvious childishness of opting for playground antics and tit-for-tat exchanges of repulsive caricatures). It is so blatantly obvious what the terrorists are trying to do, I find it incredible that folks in The West are playing their part so effectively as to create nice little wrapped packaged victories for the terrorists.

From the beginning, the President has couched this war as "A war for the hearts and minds..." Other than his initial slip of using the word "crusade" (lower case "C"), he has chosen his word very carefully.

But not so the rest of the world.

In 10 to 20 years, after we have a stable Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as others that would have been pushed over the edge toward more democrat rule) we could have had these little tests of free speech tolerance, but while the roots of democracy are still young and weak, it does nothing except weaken the possibility of success.

But, perhaps I've been mistaken all along. Maybe I've been viewing all of this through rose-colored glasses, truly believing that The West meant what they said about tolerance. Maybe most people were encouraged by the President's use of the word "crusade" and hoped he meant it with a capital C. Maybe the sea of glass is what they truly want and are trying to give the terrorists the spark they are seeking so they can see their ambitions of eradicating the Middle East come to fruition.

The evidence and behavior on the part of The West would seem to indicate that is what many desire.

Be careful what you wish for. The nuclear fallout cannot be effectively contained. Israel is a small country and would certainly catch the fallout.