Victor Davis Hanson writes about the fundamental immaturity of many in this war. We’re currently engaged in a struggle against a force that is no less evil, no less barbaric, and no less deserving of destruction than Nazism or the “Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” of imperial Japan that brought the rape of Nanking and the Bridge on the River Kwai. We’re fighting a group of savages who beheads Americans, murders civilians, and states quite clearly it’s their religious duty to kill everyone who will not submit to their twisted view of the will of Allah.
But the rhetoric coming out of this country is profoundly unserious. The Democrats are more interesting in attacking Bush than the enemy – terrorism for them is a convenient method of beating the real enemy – George W. Bush. Unfortunately, the same can be said of some Republicans as well.
The fact is, there’s a war on. Arguing that attacking the Islamofascists, whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever will somehow make things worse is like arguing that we shouldn’t attack Hitler or he might kill more Jews. These people are totalitarians, they don’t need an excuse to attack the United States. If right after Election Day President Kerry said that we were pulling out of the Middle East entirely, giving no support to Israel, and never bothering the region again, it would not end the attacks against us. If anything, they’d increase. It would be precisely the sign of weakness that would show the Islamofascists that the Great Satan could be destroyed utterly. As I have written countless times, the demands of the Islamofacists are contained in the very ideology that drives them – the world consists of Dar-al-Islam (The House of Submission) and Dar-al-Harb (The House of War). The goal of every Islamofascist is to slay all those who do not submit. Either submit to the will of Allah or perish. Neither negotiation nor compromise will satiate them, just as negotiation and compromise failed to end Hitler’s desire for power.
Only the complete and utter defeat of this ideology will prevent us from facing more September 11s every few years – or worse. The only way to do that is to ensure that this ideology is discredited completely. We cannot do that through impotent dictates from the toothless and corrupt United Nations.
Yet as VDH notes, this country is barely aware of the reality in which we live:
In a word, we have devolved into an infantile society in which our technological successes have wrongly suggested that we can alter the nature of man to our whims and pleasures — just like a child who expects instant gratification from his parents. In a culture where affluence and leisure are seen as birthrights, war, sacrifice, or even the mental fatigue about worrying over such things wear on us. So we construct, in a deductive and anti-empirical way, a play universe that better suits us.
In that regard, for the moment George Bush is a godsend. His drawl, Christianity, tough talk, ramrod straight strut — all that and more become the locus of our fears: French and Germans on the warpath? They must have been Bushwhacked, not angry that their subsidized utopia — from a short work week, looming pension catastrophe, and no national defense — is eroding.
Bombs going off in Manhattan or stuck in a tunnel while cops search every truck? Either way, Bush is the problem. Either he foolishly went into Iraq and let down our guard, or he is trying to scare us into believing that a nonexistent terrorist is under every bed. The television still blares about suicide bombers and repugnant thugs tormenting bound hostages? Surely Bush set them off. The proper response? Presto! Elect a less confrontational John Kerry, and thus cease a long, difficult war to defeat and to discredit all who would embrace such odious ideas.
Liberal civilizations often tire of eternal vigilance and in the midst of peacetime affluence work themselves into mass hysteria when challenged. Such is the picture we receive of the Athenian assembly around 340 B.C. when Demosthenes desperately warned that Philip was not a national liberator. Few thought Hannibal really would cross the Ebro. Churchill in the 1930s wasn’t listened to very much — after the Somme, who wanted lectures about deterrence? Ronald Reagan’s earlier prescience about the Soviet threat in the post-Vietnam era prompted Hollywood to turn out cheap TV movies warning of Reagan-inspired nuclear winters.
We too are reverting to our childhood and thus are in the same weird mood preferring fantasies and stories to reality. The Democrats know it. And so the unifying theme of their otherwise contradictory messages is that we can return to the infantile delusions of September 10, and not the crisis-filled adult world of post-September 11 that now confronts George W. Bush.
I would respect a Democrat who would acknowledge that we are at war, and that we must do what we need to in order to ensure that we win this war. Joe Lieberman understands this, as apparently does Joe Biden. If that means that we must foresake our false friends who embrace tyrannies rather than ending them, so be it.
In the end, we have a choice. Either we can admit to ourselves that we’re in a war, and that we have to win it, or we can go back to trying to pretend that the war doesn’t exist until an another September 11 awakes us from our slumber yet again. Given that the next attack could leave 3,000 caring for an entire city rather than other way around, we cannot afford that option.
The sad thing is that, as you mention, the Dems realize this infantile tendency and are seeking to exploit it and magnify it for their own political advantage.
Excellent post Jay. You have defined the nature of the enemy in a way that too few of our countrymen have the wisdom or the courage to do:
“… the demands of the Islamofacists are contained in the very ideology that drives them – the world consists of Dar-al-Islam (The House of Submission) and Dar-al-Harb (The House of War). The goal of every Islamofascist is to slay all those who do not submit. Either submit to the will of Allah or perish. Neither negotiation nor compromise will satiate them, just as negotiation and compromise failed to end Hitler’s desire for power.”
Keep saying it. This is precisely the argument that has managed to persuade two of my liberal associates to vote for Bush this November.
Rational and well-intentioned people can debate any number of Bush’s policies. Ignoring or denying the nature of our enemy is the clearest indicator of an irrational, immature or ill-intentioned individual. It is truly frightening to see how vast the numbers are on the Michael Moore side of the debate.
The goal of every Islamofascist is to slay all those who do not submit.
Why, though? What would drive totally normal people to get swept up in such a destructive ideology, especially members of a religion called “the way of peace” (aka Islam)?
Ask yourself something – do you think these attacks would be so barbaric if modern media didn’t exist to get them around the globe instantly? Why are the beheadings always filmed?
Moreover, if terrorists are trying to destroy America, why aren’t they attacking America? Why do they only ever attack where our troop concentrations are the strongest? We’ve got obvious, exploitable vulnerabilites here at home; why aren’t they being exploited? Why are all the terror attacks right where all the news coverage is focused; our troop placements in Iraq?
Don’t be an idiot, Jay. The purpose of terrorism is and always has been the implementation of policy through public fear. As it is you’ve missed the point of terrorism entirely. You’ve taken rhetoric at face value and failed to scratch the surface. You’ve provided a rationale for you to get comfortable with the slaughter of a cultural group, eventually; pardon us if many of us aren’t willing to play along.
Why are they attacking us where we’re strongest (Iraq/Afghanistan)? Because that’s where they have home field advantage, or the closest thing to it.
And don’t think for a moment that they aren’t doing their damndest to hit us here. Just in the past three days the Feds arrested an imam in Albany for trying to buy a RPG. Even though the alleged plot wasn’t against Americans per se (it was to assassinate the Pakistani ambassador (to the UN, I imagine) in NYC), the ‘two birds with one stone’ angle cannot be ignored. After all, lots of other countries have Pakistani ambassadors and large Islamofascist communities.
I hope we never see enough attacks on our soil to convince you that they are indeed trying to attack us here. One more would be too many for me.
Because that’s where they have home field advantage, or the closest thing to it.
Yeah, that pretty much makes no sense at all. Did you think about that before you typed it?
“Home field advantage”, Jesus Christ. This is the reason why we have to get you Republicans out of office in November.
As for your “home field advantage”, how many Americans have they killed in Iraq? 900? 1000 or so?
How many did they kill, here in America, on Sept. 11? 3000. Sounds to me like their advantage is in our field.
The only reasonable explanation is that the terrorists don’t want to “destroy America”, they want to use America – by means of influencing American foreign policy – to conquer and unify the Middle East (by presenting them America as a common enemy.)
Chet, at 10:13:
“Moreover, if terrorists are trying to destroy America, why aren’t they attacking America? Why do they only ever attack where our troop concentrations are the strongest?”
Chet, at 11:17:
“As for your “home field advantageâ€, how many Americans have they killed in Iraq? 900? 1000 or so?
How many did they kill, here in America, on Sept. 11? 3000. Sounds to me like their advantage is in our field.”
Senator Kerry would be proud.
OK, I can see I’m going to have to elaborate on the ‘home field adavantage’ remark.
You don’t win a war by falling back to your perimeter and hoping you can stop every attack your enemy makes. You win by taking the fight to your enemy. In so doing, you give him home field advantage for that part of the fight. The more resources AQ devotes to fighting our heavily-armed, superbly-trained forces in Iraq, the fewer resources they have to plan another 9/11.
Why, though? What would drive totally normal people to get swept up in such a destructive ideology, especially members of a religion called “the way of peace†(aka Islam)?
Because the Wahhabist sect of Islam (supposedly only 5% of all Muslims, although with rare exceptions the other 95% aren’t doing a damn thing to rein them in) demands it.
And, incidentally, ‘Islam’ does not mean ‘religion of peace.’ It means ‘submission.’
I just completed a course on Islam… the long definition of Islam is “Peace through submission to the will of God”.
So it means both “Peace” and “Submission”. 🙂
Senator Kerry would be proud.
Of my ability to think, contrasted with yours? I hope so. At any rate your failure to remember that 2001 was 3 years ago doesn’t bode well for your ability to follow this chain of reasoning.
Why don’t you let the grown-ups talk for a while, ok?
You don’t win a war by falling back to your perimeter and hoping you can stop every attack your enemy makes. You win by taking the fight to your enemy.
Yes, Chris, you’ve made my point for me. So then, if we’re really Al-Queda’s enemy, as you propose we are, why haven’t they done that?
They’ve had one big success to get our attention, but they’ve done nothing on American soil since then. It’s not entirely clear that they’ve even tried.
Why not, if their purported purpose is to destroy us?
The more resources AQ devotes to fighting our heavily-armed, superbly-trained forces in Iraq, the fewer resources they have to plan another 9/11.
But why bother fighting our well-trained forces at all? They don’t have a home country, Chris. They have the choice of battlefields in this war. They can bring the conflict to any country they like, but they’re attacking where our troops – and more importantly, our cameras – already are.
Because the Wahhabist sect of Islam (supposedly only 5% of all Muslims, although with rare exceptions the other 95% aren’t doing a damn thing to rein them in) demands it.
Well, it’s not clear what an American Muslim living in the Twin Cities (for instance) could be expected to do about bin Laden. And remember too that prior to 9/11 the majority of terrorist attacks on US soil were perpetrated by Christians, though I didn’t hear anybody condemn the entire Christian religion for those attacks. But, you know, go ahead and demonize all Muslims if you want.
But as you say, the Wahhabist sect seems to be the source of much of this trouble. Maybe we should strike at the heart of this sect?
Oh, but of course, that would upset Bush’s Saudi buddies, since the heart of Wahhabisim is Saudi Arabia. Oh, well, one more reason to vote Kerry in November.
Your failure to remember that 2001 was 3 years ago…”
Hey, you brought up September 11th. I was just pointing out that you were trying to have it both ways: if we never see another terrorist attack in the U.S., then obviously Bushitler manufactured the terrorist threat to keep the sheeple in line. If we do see another terrorist attack, then obviously Bushitler’s short- to middle-term strategy of remaking Iraq didn’t do anything to stop the real terrorists from attacking us here.
And I submit that September 11 was their first attempt to bring the war to us rather than just an attention-getter. If all they wanted was the Middle East, they had a decent chance of getting it by just doing what they were doing before 9/11: bomb an embassy here, Islamokaze a US frigate there, and eventually we might have tired of being nickled and dimed to death and said “Screw it. Israel, you’re on your own.” Instead, they gave us our generation’s Pearl Harbor.
It’s not entirely clear that they’ve even tried.
OK, so you don’t believe reports that the Albany imam was planning to try to assassinate the Pakistani ambassador in New York City? I just want to be clear on this.
And that’s just one incident where word got out, and it was just last week. If you seriously don’t believe that they’re still trying to strike in the U.S., then I guess there’s no reaching you.
SA’s time will come, if the ruling factions can’t put the clamps on the Wahhabists. After all, we didn’t parachute straight into Berlin in June of 1944.
As far as ‘what the average Muslim can do?’ Since there’s no overarching central authority in Islam like the Vatican or the Southern Baptist Convention, each mosque has it in its power to say “Nope, we’re not going to be part of your jihad. No money, no weapons, no safe harbor, and if we hear you’re planning anything we tell the FBI.” I’d be a lot more comfortable with Islam in general if more imams stepped up and said that.
Did I mention that the guy in Albany who tried to buy the missile was the imam of that mosque? Can’t recall.
Oh, and one last thing, Chet – do you know where we got the intelligence that allowed us to make the Albany busts?
Clarification on the Albany plot: it’s not like the imam was going to be the triggerman. He was to be the witness to the exchange of money in a money laundering scheme designed to obscure where the money to buy the RPG came from, and both Aref (the imam) and Hussein (the other guy arrested) had full knowledge what the RPG was going to be used for.
Richard Reid.
Jose Padilla.
The Lakawanna Cell.
The only reason we haven’t been hit is because of things like the PATRIOT Act that have allowed us to stop several terrrorist plans against this country. Of course, a President Kerry would repeal the PATRIOT Act.
If they lose Iraq to democracy they know that it will spread to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If that happens, the states that have been paying them off will be gone. They won’t be able to count on those governments keeping their citizens poor and ignorant and feeding them hate – creating the conditions under which al-Qaeda thrives. People in a democracy don’t strap explosives to themselves – and that’s why al-Qaeda cannot stand the idea of democracy taking root in the Middle East.
A view apparently shared by the left in this country.
Yes, Bush is such a tool of the Saudis that he invaded Iraq even though the Saudis were dead-set against it. That story doesn’t make one iota of sense.
And if you truly believe that, do you seriously think it’s wise to invade Saudi Arabia? How would you secure the oil fields and prevent a worldwide economic catastrophe? How would you think the Arab world would react to US soldiers in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina? How would you keep al-Qaeda from plunging the entire Arabian peninsula into war?
Of course you don’t have answers to those questions because you don’t believe what you say. It’s a criticism against Bush, not a strategy.
But of course, it doesn’t have to make sense, so long as it’s against Bush.
I’d be a lot more comfortable with Islam in general if more imams stepped up and said that.
Said it to who? How do you know they haven’t?
The only reason we haven’t been hit is because of things like the PATRIOT Act that have allowed us to stop several terrrorist plans against this country.
Oh? In what way did PATRIOT stop Reid from blowing up his shoe?
Boy, if you think the “plots” you guys have mentioned constitute serious threats from Al-Queda, what the hell do we have to worry about? If that’s the best they can do around here, there’s no terror threat at all.
You guys can’t have it both ways. You can’t posit that Islamofascism represents the greatest threat to American safety in history and as evidence, offer four pop-gun attacks.
Seriously. If that’s the best they can do, you’re worried about nothing. More people died of motorcycle accidents in 2001 than in terrorist attacks.
And this is why the Democrats don’t have a first clue about national security. Last time I checked, trying to blow up an airliner was a pretty damn serious thing – and had Reid been luckier he would have succeeded.
Perhaps when someone you know gets blown out the sky, or your family is dying of smallpox or radiation sickness, you can just tell them about how al-Qaeda is offering nothing but “pop-gun” attacks. Draining $1.2 trillion from the economy and killing 3,000 people isn’t a “pop-gun” attack. Blowing up an airliner isn’t a “pop-gun” attack. Detonating a dirty bomb on the DC Metro isn’t a “pop-gun” attack.
You want proof that the Democrats are utterly naive when it comes to national security – here’s Exhibit A folks.
Chet, since you didn’t answer my last question (and I suspect the reason you didn’t is that you know the answer), we got the intel on the Albany plot from documents we captured in Iraq.
You know Iraq, right? That place totally unconnected to the WoT? Oh, never mind. You don’t believe that we’re really at war.
And there’s something else I want to know, Chet, just purely hypothetical here – how many? How many people would have to die in an attack on U.S. soil to convince you? I’m just trying to establish a lower limit; obviously ‘a few’ (Pakistani ambassador and, presumably, those in the car with him) isn’t enough.
And I’m still waiting for your response to my contention that 9/11 was more than an attention getter.
As I recall Jose Padilla was a moron who got utterly owned by our law enforcement after given what was basically pocket change to al Qaeda to execute a plot he really had no means of completing. Of course you will claim that was all due to PATRIOT. Show me that he would have succeeded otherwise.
As it stands to me, that was a pretty pitiful attempt to destroy us. Argue away.
While America is attacking the Bible and the Christians, the Muslim world is uplifting the Koran and making shahids of Muslims, in the name of Islam.
America, in my opinion, does not have a moral or emotional base to seal with terrorism.
Islam is too powerful because it has not been contradicted and ridiculed as America has done to Christianity.