Quote:
There are three factors that put us necessarily in a state of war with this faction:
1) they are violent not by temporary necessity but as a matter of philosophy
2) they reject compromise out of hand as a metaphysical sin
3) they are aggressively expansionist, again not as a matter of opportunity but as a matter of principle
|
I'm not sure why you would not put the Iranian fundamentalism in this category. Look at how they are attempting to influence events in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan. They are definitely trying to expand their influence, if not their territory . I'm not sure whether or not they view compromise as a metaphysical sin, but what does it matter if you cannot negotiate with them?
Secondly, if someone is violent towards us, does it matter whether or not it is motivated by temporary necessity or philosophy? I fail to see the importance of the above distinction. Additionally, if Iran was not supplying weapons and training to the Shiite factions or providing a safe haven to radical Islamist of all ilk, I believe our course in Iraq or Afghanistan would not be as difficult.
In the overall scope of things, Iran's determination in obtaining nuclear weapons may have a more adverse effect then all the activities of the Salafi/Wahhabi/Jihadi faction.
I believe we are faced with a Herculean task in trying to install a secretarian government in Iraq or Afghanistan, namely democracy. How can you have a democracy without freedom of speech? How can you have freedom of speech without freedom of religion? The answer is you cannot. As long as proselytizing is illegal which is what SG1987 points out in the previous post it seems it's a monumental task.
So are we at war with Islam? Practically speaking, I believe the answer is yes.