”a Self-defeating War”

[waxzy]

Quote:Dear Friend,

I thought you might find it interesting to read my opinion piece below from today's Wall Street Journal.

If you would like to read more excerpts from my new book "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the war on Terror" please visit my website.

Please share this message with your colleagues. If you received this message from one of your colleagues, you can add yourself to my new mailing list here.

Wall Street Journal
”A Self-Defeating War”
By George Soros

By George Soros -- The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

What makes the war on terror self-defeating?

• First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.

• Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

• Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.

• Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.

Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.

With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.

Mr. Soros, a financier, is author of "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror" (Public Affairs, 2006).

[FighterFromAfar]

Interesting. I know George Soros is a bad guy (Freemason), so why would he be trying to disrupt the Neocon game plan for world domination by debunking the War on Terror? I can't answer that question, but I read an article that provides a better insight to George Soros' history with George W. Bush, who is the primary target of his criticism.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles....le_id=3870

Quote:More conspiracy theories
September 24th, 2004

I hope all my conspiracy theory-loving readers will put on their tinfoil helmets before they read any further. Their brains may explode and ruin a perfectly good computer monitor if they don’t, once they absorb the information contained below.

The Media Fund, headed by Harold Ickes, and spawned and supported with the help of George Soros, is running two new commercials showing pictures of George Bush with members of the Saudi Royal Family, and alluding to nefarious implications of a cover-up of Saudi involvement in 9/11. Corrupt personal financial relationships between the Saudis and the Bush family, you see, have caused President Bush to suppress results of an investigation, and explain why Saudi Royals were allowed to leave America after the fall of the Twin Towers. These are some of the same theories, of course, propounded in Michael Moore’s cinematic screed, Fahrenheit 911.

Of course, the allegations of a conspiracy involving the President George W. Bush and the Saudis have never rested very easily with the other major conspiracy theory bandied about: that a “neo-con” (code word for Jewish) cabal is controlling American foreign policy, for Israeli ends. All the “chickenhawk” Jewish advisors are allegedly callously shedding the blood of American soldiers (as if Jews are not Americans, or soldiers, either) in the service of “foreign interests.”

But the Saudis hate Israel and Jews, even more than they hate the other infidels, so how the Bush family can simultaneous serve both “masters” remains a puzzle the conspiracists have not yet figured out. But they are working on it, and I am fairly certain the answer will involve supernatural levels of sophistication on the part of the Jews, including the ability to accurately predict the next seven moves of their opponents on the global chess board.

One of the “gotcha” pieces of evidence marshaled by the Media Fund is contained in this bit of narration from one of the commercials:

“The Saudi royal family. Wealthy, powerful, corrupt, and close Bush family friends. The Saudis have invested tens of millions of dollars in Bush business ventures. Rich Saudis bailed out George W. when his oil company went bust.”

But today the New York Sun reports that among the investors in George W. Bush’s former oil company, Harken Energy, was none other than George Soros himself. While one may speculate that Soros’s bad financial outcome may have left him bitter, and thus a permanent enemy of W, experienced conspiracists know that it is never that simple.

Let’s see: George Soros, the ethnically (reportedly non-observant) Jewish currency speculator, backed George W. Bush with an investment. In conspiracy-land, that means that he “controls” George W. Bush (see commercial narration above). That could well mean that he is in cahoots with his fellow investors, the Saudis. That would mean a truly vast and ultra-secret Saudi-Jewish alliance, to manipulate the rest of the world for unknown, but obviously monumental goals. Such goals may, in fact, be beyond the comprehension of ordinary non-Jewish, non-Saudi mortals.

So the “neocons” were in league with the Saudis all along! And the whole War on Terrorberation of Iraq effort is merely a distraction, a charade, to cover up the real story. Whatever that is. My brain hurts already.

But wait! Then, how do we explain George Soros’s attacks on Bush? After all, as his financial backer (in league with the Saudis), he must actually want Bush to win.

The answer is obvious to anyone who has ever read a few conspiracy theory books. George Soros is backing 527 groups which sponsor advertising so hateful that they will discredit themselves, and drive voters away from Kerry. Think about the 527 group TV commercial which showed an American soldier holding his gun aloft, in the classic surrender posture. That’s an image which remains seared – seared - in my mind. What could be more repulsive to ordinary Americans? It is implanting the idea that a vote for Kerry is a vote for surrender. Oh, that wily Soros!

The more outrageous the accusation, the more unfair the innuendo, the better to alienate the majority of Americans, who are decent people and believers in fair play. Carville, Begala, Lockhart, et. al. are just the personnel for this job.

Heading up the Media Fund is Harold Ickes, a Hillary Clinton minion from way back. A Kerry victory would mean deferring a Hillary run for President until she is collecting Social Security, and runs the risk of an alternative Democratic machine taking away power from the likes of Ickes, McAuliffe, and other Clintonistas. So it is really a Hillary-Bush-Jewish-Saudi alliance. I’m sure the freemasons are in here somewhere, too. But I am going to have to find a bucket of water to cool off my head now.

Beware: nothing is what it seems. Poor John Kerry. He never knew what hit him.

Perhaps, because everyone who is knowledgeable about politics (but not yet awake) knows that George Soros was a supporter of John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election, George Soros is attempting to coopt the talking points of the 9/11 Truth Movement in order to lump the Truthers together with radical left-wing Democrats. Very often, people don't care as much about what someone is saying as who is saying it.