Kevin at Wizbang finds what may be the most important statement in the 9/11 Commission Report:
…In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there†should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.†In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,†some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.
As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,†and it must be converted or destroyed.
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
The emphasis on “Islamist” is theirs. This is an important statement, and it is absolutely crucial that the American people understand this. We must be willing to end the threat of Islamic terrorism. Capitulation, accomodation, or negotiation are all non-options. We are dealing with a totalitarian ideology that will not rest until this country and its way of life are completely and utterly destroyed. Worrying about how we’re percieved in the Arab world is as foolish an enterprise as worrying about what Germans thought of America in 1943.
It undermines the most important concept of our times – we are at war with an enemy that desires to wipe us out. Unfortunately, a good segment of our population exists in September 10 mode, or worse yet is more concerned with the asinine conspiracy stories of Michael Moore and his ilk. What is truly frightening is the thought that even another massive terrorist attack may be insufficient to shake them of this illusion.
This part of the report totally undermines the position of the political left.
All along, the left has argued that we somehow cause terrorism, that it is the evil western nations of the world that incite terrorism, etc….we’ve even seen such arguments presented by the liberals commenting on this blog. One such commentator even compared the terrorists to the “bullies” at school…
Let’s consider Michael Moore and his ludicrous message….here’s a quote:
“There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.” — Michael Moore, October 2003
Let’s also consider that in F911 he portrays a country under Saddam where everyone is so happy…just flying kites, and shoppers smiling, and all so wonderful under Saddam.
With Moore one of the main faces of the Dem party now, is there any doubt that many are living under a liberal illusion?
The political left is acting the same way with regards to the War on Terror as they were during the Cold War.
They try to argue that the threat is overstated, that the enemy is not so bad, that we are ultimately responsible for any misbehavior on the enemy’s part, that using terms like “evil” is far too strong and simplistic, that conservatives use the trumped up idea of a conflict for political gain, that we must learn to live with the enemy and accept them, that we cannot win and should not even try, that domestic issues are more important than fighting and defeating the enemy, that political correctness and some vague idea of approval trump safety and security.
The one difference is that at least during the Cold War, our enemy at least cared about surviving, and so deterrance was an effective strategy.
Now, if we are weak and vacillating, if the liberals succeed in weakening our will to fight and getting us off focus, the enemy will surely strike and strike hard.
If there’s any doubt whose side the media is on, check out the AP headline “Flight 93 Crashed Without Struggle” about the plane that went down in Pennsylvania thanks to the heroics of the passengers against the terrorists.
Now, the headline, which many people only read, suggests that perhaps that the idea of the passengers fighting back was some sort of myth. If one reads the article, one finds out the truth: that the passengers did indeed fight back against the terrorists, but that the struggle was outside of the cockpit, not inside of the cockpit.
My reaction at seeing the headline was “unbelievable.” Here we have the media showing a bias, not against one political party or such, but against American heroism and the idea of fighting back against terrorists.
We must overturn (in a peaceful way) the liberal media in this country; the media has far too much power, and uses it willfully to pursue an agenda that is is antithetical to our very survival.
The media has too much power? Yikes. I hope you guys don’t plan on quitting after overthrowing “big media”. There are libraries full of left-leaning materials that need to be torched as well!!!!!
Thanks for the kudos, Spoons! I am truly honored…
Bill Clinton recently said something that I find interesting: he said that one could almost tell which party affiliation one had by what one thought of the 1960’s. If one thought the 60’s were a great time in American history, then one probably is a Democrat. If one thinks the 60’s were a dark time in our history, then one is probably a Republican.
Aside from rehashing this debate, it makes me compare modern day liberalism to the drugs that were so popular during the 60’s…and of course, are still popular to some today.
Liberalism reminds me of these illegal narcotics, because like the drugs, liberalism can seem so enticing, can feel so good and so right at first, but ultimately can lead to a divorce from reality and destruction.
That’s what the liberals in denial of the War on Terror remind me of: like they are just indulging themselves in some pleasant fantasy because it feels so good. We all would love to take a break from reality and go back to the carefree days when we thought we had no enemies and, as Fukyama said, had reached the “end of history” with no real ideological struggles left to fight.
I mean, wouldn’t it be wonderful if Michael Moore were right? We wouldn’t have the terrorist problem; our biggest problem would be an addle-pated American politician that we could just vote out of office…problem solved…and far easier than fighting a war against an enemy that most people don’t fully understand and that may take decades to resolve.
If Moore’s conceits are correct, and we are the root of all that is wrong in the world, well all the better, because it can means we have control over the problems, rather than the more difficult reality that problems exist independent of us, and thus at least somewhat out of our control.
The difference is one of maturity: conservatives shake off the temptation and decide to accept reality and deal with it, realizing that is how we ultimately reach the mountaintop; liberals choose to believe in an alternate reality and in doing so choose to maximize an illusion rather than reality. Of course, the problem with denial of reality is the huge perils that involves.
The political left is acting the same way with regards to the War on Terror as they were during the Cold War.
They try to argue that the threat is overstated, that the enemy is not so bad, that we are ultimately responsible for any misbehavior on the enemy’s part, that using terms like “evil” is far too strong and simplistic, that conservatives use the trumped up idea of a conflict for political gain, that we must learn to live with the enemy and accept them, that we cannot win and should not even try, that domestic issues are more important than fighting and defeating the enemy
Man, did you pick a shitty example, or what? As we all learned, the left was right about the Cold War – we had overestimated the threat, the “enemy” was much like ourselves, calling them “evil” was simplistic and wrong, domestic issues were more important – the current spread of AIDS is a testament to that – and that much of the conflict was a trumped-up pretense to benefit politicians in military-industrial states.
What a crappy example to try and prove that liberals don’t understand war – the war we understood better than anybody.
AT, I can’t understand why you suggest one must be a Republican if they thought the 1960s was a dark period in our history. We were at war–a “pre-emptive war” by all reasonable assessments–in which underclass young men consumed bullets and napalm on one side of the Pacific Ocean and upper-class young men absorbed Budweiser and cocaine on the other side. All the while, the nuts and bolts of the military-industrial complex were being greased with human blood and future generations’ money. If I was a Republican, I certainly wouldn’t equate that formula with darkness.
It’s also humorous how you try to frame Democrats as being the party of instant gratification because not all of us are manipulated into a state of cradle-to-grave panic, constantly hyperventilating about the attack of the bogeyman. Meanwhile, you and your slime-coated ideological brethren who constantly pound the doomsday drumbeat to stir up business for your Pentagon constituency are only willing to pay for these efforts by mortgaging the federal budget and sending the bill to your children and grandchildren in the form of a financial sledgehammer between the eyes.
Since us lefties have it all wrong by not covering our heads every time you announce the sky is falling in regards to terrorism, what would you propose the left’s response should be as opposed to the undefined way you suggest we “indulge ourselves” today? This should be rich.
lucky for all of us that people like Reagan didn’t follow your lead and won the Cold War anyway…
Reagan won the Cold War? I must have missed that story. Where did it appear? Amazing Stories? Omni? Superman? That’s science-fiction, after all.
It undermines the most important concept of our times – we are at war with an enemy that desires to wipe us out.
This is just stupid.
Do you honestly think Osama bin Laden gives a rat’s ass about what we do an entire hemisphere away? He doesn’t care about America’s freedom, or our opportunities, or our Constitution, or any of the other things that make us so great.
What he cares about is our government, our public decision-making process, and our foreign policy. The reason he cares about these things is because they’re the instruments he’s going to use to make stuff happen the way he wants it to happen.
We’re not the target of terrorism; we’re the tools. I can’t believe you conservatives can’t see this. Why on Earth would Osama bin Laden care if women can vote here? Osama doesn’t want to wipe us out, because then he’d lose the biggest tool he has to implement his policies in the Middle East. That’s what he wants – control of the Middle East.
I think the reason you conservatives can’t see this is because then you’d have to come to the realization that everything Bush has done so far in the prosecution of the War on Terror has essentially been just what ObL wanted him to do.
“Kerry is bin Laden’s man”, right. Then why are the packets of white powder showing up at the Kerry-Edwards headquarters? Why is there every indication that it’s a Kerry presidency that the terrorists are worried about? Maybe because then they’d lose their biggest lever – our own American knee-jerk reactionism.
Chet,
Let’s say that Kerry is elected, and we retreat to the point where ObL et. al can realize their goal of controlling the Middle East.
Do you seriously think they’re going to stop there?
Let’s say that Kerry is elected, and we retreat to the point where ObL et. al can realize their goal of controlling the Middle East.
Do you seriously think they’re going to stop there?
If we retreat from the Middle East, ObL isn’t going to control anything.
You don’t seem to understand that we’re not the ones preventing him from taking that control, we’re the ones enabling him to take that control.
Or you could do something as breathtakingly rational as actually reading what he has to say. For instance, this is what he says about the US:
Which by his interpretation of Islam, means that he will fight the West until everyone lives under strict shari’a. If you’d read Sayyid Qutb, you’d know the same thing – until the world is united as one ulema under one supreme caliph who rules under strict shari’a, there will be no peace.
Because it’s a window into his psychology. Because he’s stating his goals.
Because if you want to defeat an enemy, you damn well should know how he thinks.
Arguing that one shouldn’t even make the attempt to understand that psychology of someone who has declared war on America is an argument that is downright asinine. Bin Laden’s beliefs are not hard to understand, except for those who wish to ignore them.
This is why the left is weak on terrorism – consider the consequences of your own position. Would you give the Middle East to bin Laden as Chamberlain gave Czechoslavakia to Hitler in the hopes of creating “peace in our time”? Would you sacrifice 8 million Israelis to diaspora or death and hope that when the members of Hamas say “after Shabbat then Sunday” they don’t really mean it?
Should anyone trust someone to comment on an ideology they admit to having not the first clue about and have no desire to study or understand?
[qs]Because he’s stating his goals.[/qs]
He’s not stating his goals. Use your brain. He’s staing what he has to state to win converts.
Seriously how could you guys take what comes out of ObL’s mouth at face value? Your naivete is going to get us into a lot of trouble, if it hasn’t already.
Seriously, Jay. I know AT likes to shoot his mouth off but I figured you were way smarter than this.
[qs]Would you give the Middle East to bin Laden as Chamberlain gave Czechoslavakia to Hitler in the hopes of creating “peace in our time”?[/qs]
No, of course I wouldn’t which is why we should pull out of the Middle East – the only thing that’s going to let ObL have it is our presence there. He doesn’t have the strength or the attraction to take it himself; the only way for him to gather the support is by coercing the US into polarizing the Muslim world. Thanks to the likes of you he’s succeeding.
[qs]Bin Laden’s beliefs are not hard to understand, except for those who wish to ignore them.[/qs]
If his beliefs are what you say they are, how come he never crashes the planes or sets off the bombs himself?
You’ve conflated the psychology of bin Laden’s followers with that of the man himself. Islamofascism is certainly a motivation for his followers, but not for bin Laden. The man, if you had forgotten, is a Saudi prince. He was educated in the West. He’s not at all like those he leads.
That you’ve forgotten that is potentially a fatal mistake. Certainly we’re dealing with unreasonable religious zealotry here, but what’s more dangerous is that we’re dealing with a man who’s bringing that zealotry under his control and into focus, and people like you and Bush the ones unwittingly helping him do it.
If AQ’s goal is simply control of the ME (and that’s not a big deal – after all, it’s not like the ME has anything the rest of the world needs, right?), then why did they plant the (foiled) April 2d bomb along the high-speed rail line south of Madrid? Spain was already following orders; the new government had announced plans to remove their troops from Iraq.
I think the Islamofascists are doing it because they want Andalusia back.