Monday, March 27, 2006

The Future of the War on Terror

J. R. Dunn over at The American Thinker has reasoned it all out with brutal perception and honesty in a three-part series (1, 2, 3). There is both gloom and hope here.

Part I explains that the jihadis will fail militarily in the Middle East, but Part II describes how they may succeed in Europe via a will-sapping campaign of low-level violence and political pressure into tacit acceptance of sharia law and Islamofascist rule in concentrated enclaves. Although the author doesn't say so, this is close to the model bedeviling the Israelis, who believe they are "solving" it by withdrawing their civilians from the affected areas. The difference is that Europe is "debellicized" and its leaders may continue to appease aggressors politically rather than defend their civilization - though that may change with new elected leadership.

Part III asserts that the next attack upon the U.S. will involve WMDs, but suggests their effectiveness will be limited. The author notes that the jihadis are losing - according to their "Plan" we should have been reduced to cowering in fear by now - and that ultimately time is not on their side.

Yet the author points out that the West's biggest problem is that it is stuck in fashionable but mistaken modes of thinking that will cause its efforts to flag or be misdirected, whereas the Islamofascists are more persistent strategically and flexible tactically. The author predicts that President Bush's security initiatives will not survive his Administration because after a few years of war, the democratic cries for a "return to normalcy" are powerful.

Yes, the West may ultimately "win". But why should we permit our effort to flag until tens of thousands die as result of our laxity? The West should not just stay the course abroad, but actively promote a change of heart and bold thinking at home: a bold statement of moral and cultural superiority that it is we who are in the right, and the jihadis who are wrong.

Moral equivalence should be exposed for what it is: a cowardly fraud that kept the world from dealing with the Nazis as they deserved until the British developed a spine after Poland was overrun, and from dealing with the Taliban as it deserved until the Twin Towers were destroyed, and keeps the Europe of today from asserting truth in the face of lies, as it backpedals into the quicksand of anti-semitism and dhimmitude and thrashes about uselessly, or makes matters worse.

What makes Europe, especially, tremble at this thought? I believe it was French philosopher Bernard-Henry Levi (I can't find the quote) who stated that is was the prospect of a war without a definite end that so terrified and immobilized a Europe still scarred by the memories of two horrible World Wars. Just as Americans used to cite the spectre of Vietnam at the prospect of any participation in foreign wars.

Well, too bad. 9-11 demonstrated to Americans that it isn't necessary to send troops overseas to for America to suffer the from war. It is sufficient to do nothing and pretend that nothing is happening, and our enemies will take their war to us.

No comments: