Like I said before, it's basically inevitable. If there are enough people willing to die to accomplish a mission, they will succeed eventually. There are simply too many ways for a determined man to wreak havok in a free society. It could be car bombs; it could be gas in the subways; it could be a biological or chenical attack in a crowded venue. There's simply no way to anticipate and prevent every possibility while simultaneously maintaining a free society.
It can't be done.
Still, Democrats will surely use these attacks as a means of taking down the President. They will claim that it's all Bush's fault, that as President, it is his responsibility to protect the nation, and that any attacks on American soil prove that he is incapable of performing that role. This argument can be expected to gain a lot of traction, because it seems reasonable. After all, protecting his citizens is one of the top responsibilities of the President. However, given that future terrorist attacks are inevitable, challenging his competence over any attacks is an unrealistic standard. A more appropriate standard, one sure to be applied by Democrats if a fellow liberal sits in the White House in the future, would be, "Did the President take all reasonable actions to prevent a terrorist attack?" That is a valid question, and one which is open for discussion. The difference between a legitimate debate like that and the aformentioned attack is subtle, but critical.
So, how can you tell the difference between a genuinely concerned citizen trrying to further the debate and a partisan hack taking advantage of a tragedy?
Listen carefully to the rhetoric that follows the attack. If it is the usual hand-wringing ("Somebody should have done something!"), or blatantly opportunistic ("See! This is what happens when you elect a conservative! It's all Bush's fault!"), then you're surely dealing with a hack seeking political advantage out of devastation. A distinguishing feature of this style of attack is that the terrorists themselves will be relegated to an afterthought.
Another classic tell is the total lack of any realistic alternative plans. You'll hear statement like "Leave Iraq now!" and "This is a result of our misguided foreign policy!" or "We must open a dialogue with the terrorists." or "Let the UN take over!" or other garbage. (Quick hint: Regardless of past actions and who did what to whom, once the shooting starts (see NYC, Wash. DC on Sept 11, 2001) the time for talk has irrevocably passed. Unless you're talking surrender. That's reality folks. Any plan which doesn't account for that reality is a pipe dream.)
It's easy to complain that the administration failed to do the right thing; it's much harder to determine what the right thing was, even with the advantage of hindsight. And more difficult still to determine the proper course of action for the future. An honest critic will not just find fault; he will present a workable alternative to the present plan.
Finally, listen closely to the critics. Are they working to aggrandize themselves, or make the country safer? Are they trying to strengthen the US, or weaken the President? This is the hardest distinction to make, and often boils down to semantics and tone of voice; the connotations of the speech rather than the denotations of the words themselves. It can be a really close call, made even more difficult by the fact that there are many who believe that weakening the President will strengthen the country.
As for me, well, I believe we are in a global ideological war, one that reaches beyond lines drawn on a map. Radical Islam (which may not be all that radical, although I still hope it is) seeks to destroy everything America stands for. They are being aided by those who should stand with us, but through fear or jealousy choose to sit this one out. They believe that they can appease this enemy simply by isolating America. But the enemy is rabid, attacking any who refuse to join it fully, and they will find themselves under the knife before too long.
This is war "to the knife." There will be no quarter given by our enemies, who view every person, whether man, woman or child, as a legitimate target for death. They aren't fighting to detroy our infrastructure; they're fighting to destroy our will to fight. Militarily, this is a no contest; they don't stand a chance. Their best hope is to break our will to fight, make us want to quit, and it is here that they have their best shot at winning. Bill Hobbs posted that he didn't think that the Islamic radicals were foolish enough to atack us on our turf again. As I said in his comments, I disagree.
Another attack in America is a win for the terrorists. First, the "loyal" opposition, as described above, will immediately begin using the attacks to bring down President Bush. Given that he is the leader of the fight against terror, this is nothing but a victory for the terrorists. Second, how will we retaliate? What country do we strike at next? We're still working on Afghanistan and Iraq; we don't really have the resources to mount another invasion, nor do we have a viable target, except for Saudi Arabia, which, as the home of Mecca and Medina, is untouchable. We can continue the present course, or invade another country. In either case, another win for the terrorists. Third, the UN will do what it always does, sit and talk, and condemn the US, while the French and the Germans sit back and say "I told you so." Should we determine who funded and supported the attacks, you can count on the UN doing everything in it's power to keep the US from retaliating. Another win for the terrorists.
On the other hand, if the terrorists back off, we win. We continue to hunt them down, and they watch as a democratic Iraq begins a chain reaction in the Middle East, as dictators fall, and Sharia becomes a memory.
They have little to lose and everything to gain.
The only question that remains is "Will we give it to them?"
Posted by Rich at November 26, 2003 3:32 PM | TrackBack