Seeing the pattern
So let’s see if I have this all figured out here.
After more than ten years of empty bluster from both the UN and the Clintonistas, Saddam remained a swaggering, villainous, terror-sponsoring dictator — a brutal thug responsible for torturing and/or murdering literally millions of his own hapless subjects and those of neighboring Islamic kleptocracies. Terrorist attacks against American interests were increasing in scope, audacity, and deadliness. Clinton continued his bumptious shadowboxing routine, with no discernible result. He did manage to lock up a meager handful of those who had attacked us — after the fact, naturally; Democrats strongly disapprove of preemptive defense — but as far as doing any real damage to the continuing ability of radical Islamofascists to execute their nefarious plans against us, Clinton was the usual empty-suit Democrat, with no real understand of or empathy for the military option, and a visceral loathing not only for the prospect of using it, but for those in uniform who would be charged with carrying out any order for such he might give. That loathing assuredly went both ways, soldiers not being nearly as stupid or childlike as Democrats like The Creep generally assume.
Then, as a direct result of the failure of Clinton’s feeble charade of concern for national defense to fool a living soul, Osama bin Laden, having witnessed first-hand in Somalia how empty The Creep’s turgid rhetoric was, plotted the attack that would establish once and for all the hollowness of America’s justly vaunted military, absent the will and intelligence to make proper use of it. No insult to that military is expressed or implied here; the fault lies entirely with the political class, and with the people who twice elected these Pecksniffian frauds to high office. Osama was essentially correct in his assessment.
And he rewarded our timorous reluctance to face down our enemies with 9/11.
Bush, having surrounded himself with at least a few close advisors who don’t suffer from the Liberal Disease of unswerving reliance on foreign-aid bribery, pointless UN resolutions, and cringing, supplicatory diplomacy to achieve American foreign-policy and national-defense goals — with never anything but a limp wrist reinforcing the velvet glove — momentarily did and said the right things in immediate response, to the shock and horror of a Muslim world grown accustomed to seeing the US retreat again and again in the manner of an old, tired hound fleeing the bite of a horsefly. We quickly removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, then turned our attention to the festering sore that was Saddam’s unpredictable and threatening regime.
Saddam, in contrast to liberals’ perfectly typical dark, whimpering predictions of doom and defeat, went down like a ton of bricks, and in almost incredibly short order was being dragged from his last sanctuary: crouching in a cesspool, disheveled, humiliated, and with his lip bloodied. He’d undeniably come a long, long way from his golden palaces and unquestioned sovereignty, and the Muslim world took note of who it was that dragged him there.
In the wake of that unexpected show of will and national self-respect, Qadafy suddenly had a change of heart about his WMD programs and came clean for the first time about them, leaving aghast a Western world that had previously had no idea how far along he was in his pursuit of nuclear weapons. Egypt promised free and open elections. Even Saudi Arabia made some slight (albeit probably insincere) nods in the direction of liberalization and the checking of the terrorist threat, for the first time in memory. Real progress was undeniably being made.
And the only prodding required to achieve these goals was a fit and proper embrace of the idea that, when viciously attacked by primeval savages, the United States reserved the right to destroy any regime that countenanced aiding and abetting them. The only truly surprising thing about it all should have been that it had taken us so long to decipher Osama’s “weak horse, strong horse” message — to figure out that strength is father to cooperation and respect, whereas weakness and vacillation breed only contempt.
And then, the retreat began.
In the face of relentless baying from the mainstream press, spurred on by same from a left wing that objectively despises everything America stands for and yearns only for its defeat and diminishment, Bush returned with forlorn alacrity the spine he had borrowed from his closest advisers and began backtracking. The “Axis of Evil” became not an assemblage of blackguard states to be dealt with sternly and with clarity of vision, but “partners in peace” to be fecklessly negotiated with. Hamas became not a terrorist organization dedicated with an ironclad fidelity to genocide and the destruction of the only true Mideast democracy, but the legitimate government of the all-but-formally-recognized State of Palestine. Hezbollah lobbed Katyusha rockets into Israel, and Israel’s response was eyed warily for the remotest sign of “disproportionality.” The promises garnered from meetings with thuggish crypto-fascist religious dictatorships were to be viewed not with a seemly suspicion but with child-like naivete and blind, over-optimistic trust. And always, always, always, the plaintive note could be faintly discerned underneath Bush’s increasingly Clintonesque bravado: “just don’t hurt us anymore — please.”
And now Syria has invaded Lebanon, and Iran careens along utterly unchecked on its way to becoming a sort of terrorist superstate, and Democrats continue squealing like Ned Beatty in Deliverance for an immediate and unconditional surrender and generally dancing to the Islamist tune, shrilly advocating for “fighting” terrorists in any place other than where we know for sure they now are. And now some Republicans are joining them.
But who can blame them, really? From the opening moments of the Iraq campaign, when “shock and awe” were abandoned for something a whole lot more quotidian and supposedly “humane,” Bush has allowed the slow, sure Democratization of this war through his own ineptness and lack of vision, and it’s almost complete. The only thing lacking now from full realization of the same old high-handed Democrat war-losing strategy is humiliating news footage of American helicopters leaving embassy roofs, with desperate locals falling from the skids like raindrops. But we’ll see that soon enough.
Anybody else noticing the pattern here? Because more of us had better do so, and quick. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to etc.
- Entries
There was a discussion recently at Hot Air about the probable US response if someone detonates a nuke on American soil. One or two people actually thought that we shouldn't strike back aggressively, but rather try to understand what motivated our assailants. I wanted to join in the mocking that ensued, but frankly I didn't have the heart for it. If a large number of people in this country no longer have the steel necessary to defend everything that we hold dear, or think that bending over for the terrorists is the proper course of action, then we could be seeing the beginning of the end. Don't get me wrong: this country has a strong heart still, despite the disease that has infected parts of it. But if that disease continues to metastisize, the end will eventually come.
Look at history. When a society, no matter how advanced, becomes too slothful and indolent, it's ripe for taking by the barbarian hordes. The barbarians aren't at our gates yet, but they're coming. And watching our current crop of poll-watching elected officials doesn't instill much hope in me that they have anything thoughts on their collective minds but to hand the gate keys over to the oncoming swarm.
And honestly, I think those complacent people kind of have a point. In our 227 year history (I start the count on April 19th, 1775) we've faced down some pretty formidable adversaries: The British, the nascent Mexican Empire, our own brothers in the Civil War, the Plains Indians, the Huns, the Nazis, the Chinese Commies, and the NVA. In the military conflicts we've generally come out on top. And let's face it: We're not exactly facing first class opposition here. Sure, they can slaughter innocent civilians lined up for food or water, they can detonate IEDs and take out the odd HMMWV or two, but in terms of fighting power, our opponents are a joke. Their best weapon is our own reluctance to stomp them into the ground, lest we be seen as bullies in the theater of public opinion.
For all the Vietnam talk, it's worth reminding people that Vietnam did not fall to an insurgency, it fell to the tanks and artillery of the North Vietnamese Army (and the fecklessness of the US government which had promised to defend South Vietnam against exactly such an invasion.) Unless we envision an Iranian invasion of Iraq - an invasion that the Iraqis are likely to resist at least as much as they do the current US forces - whose tanks are going to smash down the fences of the Green Zone?
The conditions you describe - the complacency, the unwillingness to sacrifice, the sense that while bad things are happening "over there" we are fine here as long as we stay out of it - are pretty much the same as the ones that existed in the US ca. 1939-40. At that time, the Nazis and the Japanese Empire knew that the US simply didn't have the stomach for a big land war on somebody else's shores. The Japanese were so sure of it that they just knew that if they gave us a bloody nose in Hawaii (which, after all, was just a colony like Guam and Samoa are today) then the American people would realize it was in their best interest to stay out of the war, and the Japanese could consolidate their hold on the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. And, unlike the current suicide bombers and IED-wielders in the Middle East, the Japanese were actually hard, experienced fighters who steeled themselves in the killing fields of China for almost 10 years before Pearl Harbor.
Similarly, think of the situation in the Autumn of 1941 from the German perspective: The US was only just recovering from the devastation wracked by the Great Depression, there were still numerous fractious divides in US public opinion (including substantial pro-Nazi sentiments by prominent Americans, not to mention a communist-backed labor movement that had huge support), and meanwhile, the Axis armies were rolling across the Soviet Union like a tidal wave, England was still licking its wounds from the humiliating retreat from France, Rommel was on the march in Africa, and U-boats were savaging the lend-lease convoys in the Atlantic. At that point it seemed, again, to the Germans that just a little push would be all that was needed to keep the US safely on the sidelines, secure in the knowledge that it wasn't their country that was going to be sacked by the new Barbarians, so why get in a scuffle?
And yet...it was exactly that sense of a genuine existential threat that brought us around in a remarkably short time, to face and then defeat the threat.
So, I'm not quite as pessimistic as you, Mike. Right now the barbarians are running wild because we lack the will and the concern to really hammer them. Although our complacency today will cost lives in the future (just like our complacency in 1939-40 cost lives in 1941-45) I have no doubt about the outcome. Western Civilization may eventually fall to the Barbarians, but I doubt it will be any time soon, and I doubt it will be these particular Barbarians. For all their tough talk and ruthless/insane ideology, in a straight up fight, these guys aren't even close to us in terms of destructive ability.
I think there is a tendency, in these types of discussions, to focus on the strengths of our enemies and on our own weaknesses and vulnerabilities. While those are genuine concerns, I think that this kind of perspective paints an unneccessarily gloomy picture, because it leaves out the flip side of the coin, which is the weaknesses or vulnerabilities of our enemies and our own (our, as in Western Civilization's own) strengths.
Take a look at the enemy's main strength, which is their fanatical zeal, their ability to use the tenets of a religion followed by a billion people to their own ends, and their willingness to use any means to acheive their goals. Those are strengths, to be sure. But look at their weaknesses, also: Their technological and civilizational backwardness means that they will never be able to acheive any military victories without using the weapons of their opponents. As Rumsfeld said, way back when, these are people who use weapons they could never have built to destroy things that they never could have created. Their relationship to Western civilization is parasitical: They need us, we don't need them.
Furthermore, what do they have to offer the people of the world other than a nihilistic philosophy of suffering and terror? Remember that the barbarian hordes that sacked Rome didn't want to destroy it - ultimately what they wanted was the benefits of Roman civilization for themselves. For all their terrifying abilities and scary rhetoric, it's interesting to note that unlike communism, which had numerous advocates and supporters worldwide, the Islamic Jihad seems to thrive only in those places where the people are already generally pissed off about everything. Even in chaotic Africa, the Jihadis can only get in at the margins.
But if the enemy's overlooked weaknesses are not cause to feel some relief from the feelings of doom, Western Civilization's own strengths certainly should be. You have only to look at the result of natural disasters in the Western world vs the Islamic/3rd world to see that it's going to take a lot more than a few bombs to topple the pillars of the West. A tsunami or hurricane that kills 1,000 in the US would wipe out half a million in other parts of the world, and leave a trail of devastation in its wake that would last for centuries.
Our multiple-redundant systems of health care, communications, transportation and general logistics mean that even a devastating (and rare) natural disaster like a major hurricane, a volcanic explosion, or a serious earthquake, create only localized chaos, and even then order is restored within a matter of days. Contrast this with the Asian countries responses to the Tsunami, or to the typhoons that regularly devastate the coastal areas of Asia, and which create destruction and lawlessness that lasts for months or more. Trying to destroy Western civilization with a few bombs - even nukes - would be like trying to chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with a stick of butter.
Please understand that I'm not trying to say there's no cause to be alarmed. There is, to be sure. But neither is there cause to hang our heads in sorrow and start playing a dirge for Western civilization. This fight ain't over, by a long shot. In fact, I'd say it hasn't really even begun.
This whole ruling political elite class we've built is getting a little hard to swallow.
Now, first of all, he may be "term limited" in his current office, but that doesn't mean he can't start running for another elective office like Representative, which would create the kind of constant campaigning and sucking-up-to-potential-donors that seems to offend so many people.
But second, let's assume that he does not desire to run for another office. Fine and dandy. So now he gets a piece of legislation on his desk that will favor Consolidated Widget over Spacely Sprockets. And it also just so happens that Spacely Sprockets has offered our soon-to-be-ex-politician a cushy position on their board of directors. You see where I'm going with this?
At least the "corruption" of having to appeal to the voters works within our political system. That is to say, politicians have to be craven and pandering, but they are craven and pandering to the people who they hope will vote for them. And because a corruption scandal can derail their re-election campaign, they have at least some incentive to stay "clean."
OTOH, if politicians know they are going to be out of a job at the end of this term, it's awful tempting for them to push through legislation that just coincidentally will favor someone who's promised them (or one of their family members) a nice post-retirement position. And if the people don't like it, they can pound sand in their ass because the politician doesn't need them anymore anyway!
The west is complacent because it can be ... we are minimally threatened by _damage_ from Jihadis/Hirabis.
Small parts of the EU population are presently _starting_ to feel threatened and ... oh look, they did something about it ... they elected pro-WW4 leadership in both France and Germany.
(Step back from the WW4 mindset for a minute and ask yourself ... do we-in-the-west really prefer Germany or France or the UK or the Balkans to be quick-to-fight over race/religion or would we really rather they err on the side of pacifism given their recent last few hundred years experience in excessive warfare.)
Many of us on the anti-Jihadi side make is in thinking things are as-they-have-been and as-they-will-be ... that the people and attitudes we have now are the same we'll have next month or next year. The sheep (liberals, the media, the EU) never appreciate the sheepdogs (the US military and US anti-pacifists) until the wolves are striking.
But the Jihadis are idiots and strike before they're anywhere near ready ... believing they're protected by religious fervor and divine protection.
I believe the west is foolish to let Jihadi influence expand, and that we will experience more casualties as a result ... but nothing short of suicide-bombers in US/EU shopping malls will motivate the sheep to support the sheepdogs.
Imagine if the UK-doctors-plot had succeeded ... a sequential double-bombing targeting a mega-club's Ladies-night and attacking a major airport:
The UK would be calling for the reincarnation of Churchill and the entire EU political spectrum would be shifted one more step away from pacifism, just as it was with the recent French ghetto-uprising.
Modern Europe has reconditioned itself away from militarism ...but think of the European historical capacity for death and mayhem ...
And then think of BelmontClub's "Three Conjectures" post ... http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
that either we "solve" the Jihad problem _really_quickly_ or we'll be forced to exterminate all muslims as soon as they have repeatable nuclear-weapons-creation-and-use capability.
Honestly, I think the US is less likely to initiate exterminatory warfare than Germany, France, etc ... because the US does not have a "muslim problem" even 1% of what the EU does.
We look like we've been playing good-cop+bad-cop with the EU and Iran ... actually, I think we've been playing Dr-Jekyl+bad-cop with Iran ... and Europe is going to "solve" its "muslim problem" ... internally and externally ... the Mr-Hyde way ... just as they have before.
Sarnac, I agree with most of what you said, but not neccessarily with this part.
While many people in the UK might start thinking this way, I doubt that "the UK" as represented by the likes of the BBC, would react like this to what would have been, all things considered, a relatively minor attack, not much worse than the IRA bombings of the 70's. Instead they'd likely react the way they did to the 7/7 bombings, with sympathy for the victims and vicious little whispering campaigns about how it was the UK presence in Iraq, or Queen Bessie's knighting of Salman Rushdie, or maybe the way some Member of Parliament said something snide about the Muslims that was the real "root cause" of the violence.
But at the end of the day, the victims would buried, the damage would be cleaned up, the usual proclamations about not caving in to terrorism would be made (along with the now mandatory addendum acknowledging that Islam is a peaceful religion and that most Muslims are law abiding citizens) and then life would go on.
The Western victory, then, would not be the cravenly PC statements that would inevitably follow, rather the Western victory would be represented by the fact that for the rest of Britain, life would go on.