Redstate

By phred Posted in War — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

There is an amazing assortment of strategies as to the direction America should take regarding extremist Islamic terrorism. Isolationists indicate that we need to concentrate on domestic issues and protect our borders instead. Those who otherwise look in disdain at arguments promoting US sovereignty make the case that we are meddling and should be sensitive to the culture and beliefs of other countries or regions; that an immediate threat to our well-being should be proven beyond all doubt; that costs in resources and lives are greater than any possible return. Blame-America-first followers indicate a need to look at ourselves and change policies so as not to invite these retributions and that we should be concerned that our reactions are inciting even more violent attacks, if more violence is in fact possible.

These and similar arguments usually do not cross the line of finding fault in the action of seeking those individuals directly responsible for attacks on our soil, foreign stations or vessels; but attempt to call into question the level of intensity that U.S. resources should be expended in that endeavor and the pursuit of groups attributed to or aided in the atrocities. Much as in the case of bringing any criminal to justice, many call for a global manhunt to try and subsequently punish those specific “alleged” criminals. All in all, it boils down to semantics of whether these attacks should be viewed as a law enforcement or military issue. Law enforcement is by definition an after-the-fact action upon the discovery of a crime. How does one hunt down a doctrine or a fanaticism?

Unlike uniformed armies, our terrorist enemies are plentiful in numbers and widely dispersed. They have shown themselves as well financed and have cunningly duped countries into harboring and aiding them or have found sympathetic regimes that appear to have endorsed them. They have even taken advantage of American benevolence by converting contributions made to apparent humanitarian philanthropies for use in promoting terrorist activities.

Should we wait for further inevitable attacks and seek out the individuals responsible for that specific action, as is the case with murder or robbery? Absurd as this sounds it seems to be a widely promoted strategy, as if we were fighting individual criminals that just happen to (by some fantastic coincidence) yell “Praise Allah” as they crashed a plane or blew up a vehicle killing or injuring others and themselves. Unlike the person that commits a murder and ceases to commit further murders once incarcerated, the remaining uncaught terrorists are just as fervent as ever, maybe more so. Then when we are attacked again, and we will be, our leaders are blamed that not enough has been done or that do to ineptness, the “dots were not connected.” Would we hold our chiefs of police responsible if citizens are murdered in our communities?

Should we appease our attackers by agreeing to their demands? What demands? There are none, save for every non-Muslim on earth to cease to exist. Even then they seem to care just as little for other Muslims or themselves for that matter. How does one negotiate with an adversary that has no particular demand and will agree to anything for the time only to renege if it suits them? A perfect example of this blind hatred is Yassir Arafat’s total rejection of the Camp David agreement even though the Israelis capitulated to virtually every item he had demanded. Arafat’s action profoundly demonstrated that his only desire was to maintain an excuse to oppose Israel and keep “his” people whipped into a violent frenzy.

In the case of a diplomatic respect of sensitivities and belief fundamentals of our opponents, it appears that their only commonly held conviction seems to be our destruction. Concession of this principle is obvious lunacy unless you happen to be either a terrorist or suicidal. Besides, what were we doing to attract this sort of pandemonium prior to our current military activities? Do these renegades hate our current leaders so much that the election of new U.S. leaders would change their demeanor? The toppling of the Spanish president didn’t seem to affect the efforts of the Moroccan terrorist group, and Spain of all countries, was conquered by Muslim Moors and ruled for almost 800 years. Short memory.

Should we resign ourselves to an existence of a constant state of threat and KGB-esque security at high-profile events? What if terrorists strike a Greyhound or city bus will we then place metal detectors at every bus stop? How high should stifling preventative-security measures have to go before suffocating the American lifestyle out of existence? I know that fairy-tale sereneness of the ‘50s will never return, but can the most open society on Earth long endure the constant nuisance of attack and maintain any semblance of what has made it such a great nation?

Just as in the anxiety caused by feist dogs nipping at the heels of a stroller on an afternoon walk, America now has the more deadly annoyance of human jackals that are as likely to negotiate as any other rabid predator. America is a large target and the costs of defending every chink in her armor is impossibly burdensome. When high profile targets become too difficult to penetrate, our adversary will choose softer and softer targets until the most mundane activity of our culture is fouled with their possible presence.

Can America afford a massive defense without an offensive directed at her enemy? No, unless we were to also look favorably on a policy that allows all the criminals to roam freely while its citizens cow in their homes like hunted prey. There are far more points to protect than there are terrorists. As a practical matter there really is no option other than pursuit of the enemy and those that support its mission. A purely defensive stand would last to the end of time.

Our enemy is omnipresent and the devastation of its acts is real and lasting. As President Bush has said, you are either with us in the fight against terrorists or you’re with the terrorists. Look around; it’s not very hard to pick out the havens of this foe. If this is a war then we can’t get caught up in the smoking gun argument. The evidence of smoke may very well be from a deep crater in our landscape. Preemptive action is not unsportsmanlike if the stakes are lost American lives. The US should not give less than her full attention to this threat and if necessary drag the whole world kicking and screaming into a more peaceful existence.

We must not become confused by the anti-American sentiment, for no matter the level or strategy we pursue to defeat terrorism, it will be criticized as wrong, naïve, cowboyish, impulsive, or imperialist. These same dissenters would complain that the world’s only super-power stood by and did nothing. When is the last time you heard the Euro-Elite sing our praises over our $15 billion pledge in the fight against AIDS in Africa; humanitarian efforts in Sudan; Libya’s withdrawal from the nuclear club; or North Korea’s recent destruction of a reactor cooling tower? Like the pathological preoccupation of celebrity missteps and shortcomings, these nay Sayers, both foreign and domestic, are concerned with only one thing; that America fails in every endeavor. This jealousy/animus is veiled in embarrassment for how America appears to the rest of the world. Somebody’s got to be the “daddy” here. The level of opposition to America’s progress is directly proportional to the certainty of her success, a reassuring barometer that we are on the right course. A rising tide floats all boats, but success cannot be gauged by international or local accolades, they will not be forthcoming.

The US-lead eradication of global Islamic Fascism is necessary to save our country and our way of life and that of the World. There is no other willing and capable opponent to take this challenge. This fight is just, and like the pilot on take-off, requires full throttle. Encouraging news should not lessen our enthusiasm or slow our advance. If this cancer is not eradicated it will once again metastasize in years instead of centuries. Less-than-overwhelming power will drag this mission beyond the attention span of a microwave society and expose it to the scrutiny of administrations that lack wisdom, vision and leadership to see it through to victory. There is no second place in this effort, only victory. We should fight like our lives depend on it. It does.