'Til the Cows Come Home

"Could it be. . .SATAN?"
GWB as Enid Strict, SNL's The Church Lady
________

Tony Blankley at Real Clear Politics recently offered a concise summary of the rationale for the Phony War on Terror (PWOT) © (The War on Terror Six Years On). But like all apologists, he fails to mention the things which bring about the diminution of the rationales.

He bemoans the fact that "six years after 9/11, there is little consensus in the United States or Europe as to the nature and magnitude of the threat," and says he "never imagined that six years into the ordeal, we would remain so utterly divided in the face of a unique and little understood enemy."

But therein lies the problem. Because of the secrecy shrouding the whole undertaking, we are unconvinced of the dimensions of "the enemy." We are divided because half of the country refuses to follow blithely a war-mongerer who has never warred into a cataclysmic crusade. One rightly seen as an overreaction to a criminal act carried out by a relatively small stateless group terrorists.

Terrorism is not something the world has not already seen. Ditto religious fanaticism. We know that religious adherence brings with it oftentimes a nonsensical and passionate distrust/hatred of the other, the infidel. This is all simply a sad fact of being human in this world, whatever your creed.

But the hubris and idiocy involved in attacking a nation because their major religion happens to be that of the criminals who attacked you, is horrendous. It is adding lighter fluid to the flame. If what we had to argue against their stated form of criminality (the religious jihad) was a reasoned democracy where all men are considered equal, we have lost it.

We no longer have the moral high ground as defense. Because we have abdicated our dedication to our Constitution and the freedoms guaranteed therein, we have lost any sense of justified cause in this undertaking. How can we inseminate democracy when what we have to offer has become so distorted?

Even as one reads the above indictment of a corrupted Union, the antithetical nature and sheer insanity of fighting a war to "bring democracy" must be evident.

Having lost strict adherence to democratic principles, all of the tawdry vulgarities which are also a part of freedom come to the fore. Because of the loss of the mighty prop of a just democracy, the initial attack must seem increasingly justifiable to those sympathetic to the cause. What is seen from the outside is a rapacious, more-for-me, hypersexualized society. We could not have performed a better PR job for the jihadists if we tried.

Even Thomas ("6-months more FU") Friedman wrote recently, "(T)he war there has become disconnected from every conceivable worthy goal (Somebody Else's Mess)."

But Blankley continues, "Much of the ferocious controversy over electronic intercepts, Guantanamo, CIA renditions, semi-secret foreign-based CIA prisons, coerced interrogation methods, and the Patriot Act provisions is a product of not seeing a sufficient threat to national security to justify tough wartime intrusions into civil liberties. " The paranoia is palpable. What makes this threat so different that we must forgo being the nation that we once were?

"Europe is the canary in the mineshaft regarding cultural stress between Muslim and indigenous culture. If we permit unmanaged cultural drift, in five to 10 years we will be where Western Europe is today -- in the throes of violent inter-cultural contention."

Yet he admits that our Muslim population is largely assimilated and prosperous, and gives the answer to those who are problematic a few paragraphs earlier when talking of the Brits: tougher immigration and deportation procedures. Deportation and border patrol should be areas of concern anyway for a functioning and properly vigilant nation. But for any of Europe's immigrant problems, they are not bleeding away their resources in a foreign land, with guaranteed poor returns.

The most problematic assertion of this administration is that we are in a death-struggle against radical Islam for our very existence. Since the beginning of the PWOT, Ranger has espoused realistic threat assessment. Taxpayers have a right to know why their dollars are being spent at a prodigious rate on non-citizens, yet they are not given the intelligence upon which this profligacy is based.

We want to know the actual nature and magnitude of the threat. Facts, versus propaganda. Not GWB's incendiary Revelation theology about great powers crashing and confrontations in the "Holy Land," not platitudes about "baby steps"; actual data upon which the actions are based. GWB cannot ask this level of commitment and sacrifice for an indefinite period without explanation to citizens who live in a democracy.

Ranger has consistently hypothesized that al-Qaida does not have more than 100 hardcore, dedicated operatives ready, willing and able to direct viable attacks against U.S. targets. The reason the U.S. has not been attacked since 9-11 is al-Qaida's abilities were degraded through the loss of 20 operatives.

The 9-11 attack scenario cannot be easily replicated. And of course, al-Qaida wins again since daily vigilance and expenditure of resources is required to maintain a reasonable defensive posture.

The defensive nature of the problem is the key point because wars are never won by fighting defensively. Look at what our forces are doing in Iraq and you can figure out this is not a winning proposition. Who are the Americans fighting? I'm sure they don't know, but they are pretty clearly-marked targets for anyone with a beef against the new colonialists on the block.

This is not a war the military can fight, and good national and international police and intelligence work is the only logical response to the threat. Unfortunately, this cooperation is exactly what present U.S. policy refuses to implement.

"If we in the United States can't agree on the nature and magnitude of the threat, we aren't likely to agree on the means of protecting ourselves from it." Correct, and the half of the country that disagrees with the war is the half with its eyes open, asking for someone in power to reveal what it is exactly we're supposed to be rallying behind, and how we are going to be made safer by doing so.

U.S. secrecy and arrogance will compromise our safety more assuredly than will al-Qaida.

--Jim and Lisa