California Conservative

That’s the first impression I got when I read John Arquilla’s article in the SF Chronicle. Here’s the lunacy that Mr. Arquilla is peddling:

Osama bin Laden’s offer of a truce has sunk from sight without leaving a ripple, but it should have made waves. When the audiotaped proposal was made 10 days ago, the White House dismissed it out of hand. That was a politically logical move, given the need to appear tough on terror at all times. An image of strength and determination may be particularly important in the months ahead because Republican Party leaders have put security issues at the heart of their 2006 congressional election campaign strategy.
But there are reasons why bin Laden’s overture should be carefully weighed and thoughtfully debated. The moral imperative that should drive us is a sincere desire to end the long suffering of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Official figures suggest that 30,000 innocent noncombatants have been killed since March 2003 in Iraq alone. Many respected sources believe that this figure is grossly underestimated. So if bin Laden were to call off his dogs of war, it would be a very good thing, saving lives by removing major elements in the insurgencies in both countries. Such al Qaeda withdrawals would sharply reduce the need for our forces to remain in these sad lands.
Peace would also prove a boon to our standing, both in the Muslim world and throughout the international community, where, after initial agreement with our attack on terrorists in Afghanistan, serious fissures erupted over the propriety (and legality) of our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

That this idiot actually thinks that bin Laden would keep his word on the truce is proof of his stupidity. And his claim that the adminnistration had to sound tough is a telltale sign of just how clueless ultraliberals are. In their way of thinking, all that’s needed for peace is a signed piece of paper with a liar’s signature at the bottom.

What’s even more telling is this line from his article: “serious fissures erupted over the propriety (and legality) of our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.” Why does this idiot think that people in Afghanistan give a rip about what the UN or some lunatic Democratic strategist has said about the legality of invading Iraq? And who cares if a couple international ninnies get their undies in a bunch over Iraq? The US leaving Iraq wouldn’t do anything to win those critics over to President Bush’s side.

The practical political consequences of the pursuit of peace might be favorable, too. Instead of being ridiculed, those leaders in both parties who support a just peace, if they work together, could be praised for such a noble undertaking. Who knows? The bitter partisanship that characterizes so much of our public discourse today might actually be tamped down.

There’s a term for this strategy: cutting and running. And all it will get us is dead because it’d be a sign of weakness to AQ terrorists. Cutting and running is what losers do. And yes, sounding tough is important with these Islamoterrorists, although being tough is more important.

Prof. Arquilla’s ignorance of AQ is further displayed when he doesn’t even take the principle of hudna into account. “Hudna is always a false truce, a space in which the Muslim can rebuild his strength until he is ready to go back to war against the infidel. A radical Islamic fundamentalist would only offer a truce in the tradition of the Prophet, who used it as a ruse to ultimately capture Mecca.”

In other words, Prof. Arquilla’s idea of accepting this truce is ill-informed and unwise. But that’s what you should expect from a looney liberal.

Cross-post at LetFreedomRing

This entry was posted on Monday, January 30th, 2006 at 10:07 am and is filed under Activism, Author: Gary Gross, Homeland Security, Liberals, Terrorism, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.