Ralph Peters: USA better at terrorism than M.E. (w/poll)

Where should we, the great country that is Bush's Merika, draw the line in the War on Terra? Should we BECOME terrorists? Seriously, I want to know.

If we are determined to do everything it takes to win this "war", and terrorism is the only way, is that fair game? I ask because Ralph Peters, in defending the administration's actions, said this on Monday night's Newshour:

RALPH PETERS: Now, whether or not you describe to Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations, we are without doubt witnessing something without precedent, the crash of a once great, still proud civilization, that of Middle Eastern Islam. And the problem is that the Middle East is not competitive in any sphere, not even terrorism. We're terrorizing the terrorists.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again, Peters' proof that we are winning this "war":

RALPH PETERS: And the problem is that the Middle East is not competitive in any sphere, not even terrorism. We're terrorizing the terrorists.

Why is terrorism such a great threat when really, American is #1 in this sphere?

Does this strike anyone else as odd? Alarming? Just to flush out the rest of this diary, here are some other gems from that very transcript:

RALPH PETERS, Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel: Yes, but -- I hope we can talk about it later, but I draw on the definition of failed states.

But as far as Iraq goes, it hasn't failed yet. We need to remember that. The odds may only be 50-50. But if it does fail, the president's assumption that it's a direct threat to us may not prove right. A failed Iraq with Sunni and Shia going at each other may be al-Qaida's Vietnam.

Ok, fine. You don't think Iraq is a failed state. Luckily Margaret Warner asked Peters to clarify for the Newshour viewers, just what a failed state is:

MARGARET WARNER: But more broadly, he was saying, if we go with the classic definition of failed state, is it not that where a central government really doesn't exercise effective control, and so you have non-state actors, as they call them, groups that establish their own militias and, he says, leads to violence. Is that kind of thing a direct threat to U.S. security when it happens in the Middle East?

So what she did here was give Peters an out. She asked him two questions: isn't this a definition of a failed state? And secondly, is a failed state a direct threat to U.S. security if it happens, you know, over there.

But really - Peters didn't even take the out. He instead said this:

RALPH PETERS: You know what, failed states, and certainly in the Middle East as well as elsewhere, tend to concentrate on their internal problems. They don't generate terrorists. The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and elsewhere came from stable states, I would argue other kinds of failed states in the Middle East.

The danger in a failed state, as Afghanistan was briefly, is it throws up a radical movement that provides a safe haven for terrorism which then directly threatens the United States. But if Iraq comes apart, they're going to be preoccupied with their own problems for a long time.

So, according to Peters,

"failed states, and certainly in the Middle East as well as elsewhere, tend to concentrate on their internal problems. They don't generate terrorists."

AND

"The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and elsewhere came from stable states, I would argue other kinds of failed states in the Middle East."

Iraq is not a failed state, so it's no big deal. Besides, failed states do not create terrorists. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were from stable states. On a sidenote, keep in mind that there is a small danger in a failed state, and that is it throws up a radical movement that provides a safe haven for terrorism. That happens every once in a while, like in a failed state few people know about, it was called "Afghanistan."

Afghanistan produced some bad people called "terrorists". But if Iraq becomes a failed state, nothing bad will happen because they'll be concentrated on Iraq and they won't attack the U.S.

In closing, I'm just going to replay that gem from the beginning, because, really, in every sphere America is indeed #1!!!

RALPH PETERS: It's not true. There's a difference in language here. U.S. actions over the past half-century have exacerbated somewhat an already catastrophic civilization.

Now, whether or not you describe to Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations, we are without doubt witnessing something without precedent, the crash of a once great, still proud civilization, that of Middle Eastern Islam. And the problem is that the Middle East is not competitive in any sphere, not even terrorism. We're terrorizing the terrorists.

And it's a problem of humiliation and jealousy, but it is homegrown. Again, you know, we made mistakes in the Middle East. We made a bad problem somewhat worse.

But when the professor criticizes and blames all this on the United States, it's the classic heart-breaking problem I encounter in the Middle East, where last week I was in Israel sitting down with senior Israelis. And the senior Israelis were looking at what was going wrong and criticizing themselves, their own system, "How do we make this right?"

I also sat down with a group and Saeb Erakat, who's about as good as the Palestinians get. Erakat immediately went into, "It's all Israeli's fault. It's all the United States' fault." And, you know, the plumbing doesn't work, so it's a CIA and Mossad.

The Arabs in the Middle East have got to come to grips with their own responsibilities. And as far as Iraq failing goes, it hasn't failed yet, but the professor and all of us had best hope Iraq muddles through to at least a halfway success because it, frankly, may be the Arab world's last chance. This is a failed civilization.

We're number 1! We're number 1! U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A rah!