"If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people."-- John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, endorsing The Macho Response - all the way back in 2005 - to The 7:30 Report.
The trick is to marginalise the fanatics so they are the ones who look like they are committing atrocities, suppressing the people, endangering lives. If you're doing the same thing then you have no upper hand, no higher moral ground. That was the whole problem with the Coalition of the Willing.
ReplyDeleteObama is blindsiding bin Laden and his cronies because suddenly they look like the only ones willing to be pricks on a full-time basis.
Which is a harder sell to potential new recruits "the infidels are attacking us and destroying our homes" or "the infidels are trying to trick up by being inclusive and supporting the rights of Muslims"? The last one sounds pretty weak.
But the real test of Howard's words will be whether there is an increase or decrease of insurgents. Hard to quantify perhaps. Are there more or less terrorist acts when the allies increase their activity in trouble spots or less? Those are the necessary objective tests required.