Now the AEI which posesses much influence over our current foreign policy are students of Machiavelli. They have written about him with great admiration. They handed this book out to members of Congress. Machiavelli according to Michael Ledeen, in his book Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, proscribed a leader that is at war, a leader that may have to enter into evil to accomplish one's means. One that uses religion to persuade troops to give their life for the state. This is the AEI's model leader.
Now you don't have to be Machiavelli, you don't have to be Von Clausewitz, you don't have to be Sun Tzu to tell you that a ragtag group of terrorists that have to run their organization from exile, CANNOT successfully take one state, let alone the WORLD. The second they take one state they become exposed. A head of state cannot foment revolution and then rule from exile. Lenin achieved the converse but ruling from exile is untenable. So please tell me how this global caliphate story is not just some fairy tale to scare Christians.
Big GOVERNMENT Republican: Well, even if it isn't possible they believe it and that is the primary reason 9/11 happened.
Well if they were ever to establish this Caliphate they need recruits again, intervention is the primary justification for recruitment. Infidels on Arab land, not infidels existing. Imperial wars on foreign lands usually end up in political quagmires, especially ones with completely different societies, recruiting always takes a hit once the conflict leaves home. Also with Imperial wars, the public becomes desensitized to the harsh realities of war, of conflict, of hostile regime change since these scenes are playing out far away from the "Homeland".
In all cases of war the enemy is often caricatured as some kind of animal. That is propaganda and it happens on both sides and unfortunately many well meaning citizens take the bait. Emotion takes precedent over fact, the ability to objectively assess the situation becomes almost impossible, and positions once considered absurd become attractive through suggestion, many time involving half truths and slogans. Leaders on both sides use this tactic and exploit the vulnerabilities of the public, they do not believe these slogans. Perpetual Revolution is not an attractive option to sober people, just ideologues and their sheep.
The Caliphate is a utopian goal and recruiting jihadists is the means. Now how do we cut off the means? You can attempt to broaden the conflict and engulf the whole region with the utopian idea of "democracy spreading" or you can isolate them, cut off their recruiting, and defeat them. That cannot be accomplished through "democracy spreading". The punishment for supporting Al Qaeda should be clear. This is not so, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are bigger supporters than Iran or Iraq ever were, yet Iraq has been toppled and Iran is next. Al Qaeda should be made an example, not given a respite. It should be isolated, not unified with the rest of the Muslim world. Like I said, once we attack Iran we unite the Islamic World, the opportunity of exploiting Sunni-Shiite differences disappears and the difference between moderate and extremists blurs slightly more. Also big players like Russia and China, who once again holds much of our debt, get involved and there arises an economic front that will open up against us. Now does it make sense to do that? How is perpetual war the answer? How is it possible? Either they are following Machiavelli's example and lying about their intentions or these ideologues actually believe their own nonsense, but I believe the answer is somewhere in between.
Traditional globalists are even up in arms because the Bush Administration is playing russian roulette with our treasury, our security, and our well being as a superpower. This is dangerous and the American People have been greatly let down by the media, both MSM and the Talk Radio right. Our extremely corrupt politicians are going off the deep end, when we open up the final front against Iran and take on the Shiites, our open borders will prove useful to them. Going into Iran opens up a geopolitical can of worms that we can't comprehend. We still have time to wake up before its too late, but we are running out of chances and a status quo vote in 08 will most definitely cross the rubicon. There really is not much parity in any of the "viable" candidates. That should cause concern.
If this seems all over the place to some that is because policy and its consequences do not happen in a vacuum. I know people like things broken down to talking points and simple concepts, which makes them more susceptible to manipulation, but things like foreign policy are much more complex.