Thursday, August 09, 2007
Via Matt Drudge comes a column by Stu Bykofsky which makes the ludicrous claim that America "needs" another day of atrocities committed by superstitious primitives and celebrated by Musselmen the world over.
Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.First of all, unlike Bykofsky, this commentator refuses to use a term so tepid as "9/11" to describe that day when nothing less will do than a phrase containing (1) the word "atrocity", (2) a reminder that said atrocities were motivated by Islam, and (3) the reaction to said atrocities by their supporters around the world.
We knew who the enemy was then.
We knew who the enemy was shortly after 9/11.
Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are "safer" now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams," whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze.
America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.
What would sew us back together?
Another 9/11 attack.
Second, just this morning, I said the following:
The moral justification and purpose for fighting a war of self-defense ... is the protection of life and liberty from those who wish to take them away. It is not retaliation. It is not stalemate. And it is not the impossible goal of forcing those who reject civilization to adopt civilization. The only legitimate moral or practical criteria for deciding how to act towards our enemy in a war is the following: How can we best render our enemy unable to harm us, while causing ourselves as little injury as possible?Clearly, some of us remain outraged nearly six years later, and understand what will be needed to fight the war that these atrocities called for; some of us are either outraged and don't know what needs doing or out of focus and clear about what ought to be done (despair, perhaps?); and some of us possess neither the fire nor a clue.
My life is sacred.... If Islamic totalitarians and their sympathizers force me, through their hostilities, to choose between the lives of millions of savages and my own life and freedom, I will proudly choose my life and my freedom. It may or may not take them 50 million deaths, give or take, to grasp it, but I want our military to do whatever it takes to get through to this superstitious filth that if they keep lobbing bombs at me, they can damn well plan to hide in their hovels and caves from our war machine.
Forget the sympathizers with Islamic totalitarianism.
How the hell will another attack provide further motivation to those of us who remain in focus? And how will such an event "educate" those who do not understand the purpose, moral justification, and proper execution of a war about any of those things?
Bykovsky also slams Americans for their short attention spans, but forgets that our war in Iraq has already exceeded in duration a two-front war against far more worthy adversaries than Iraq and the nations we should be fighting put together. We won that one decisively, by the way, and remained united, focused, and effective.
Bykovsky, rather than hoping for an Islamofascist encore, should consider (1) the differences between how we fought World War II and the war we should be fighting (of which Iraq should have served by now as, at most, a staging ground for further attacks) and (2) why these differences exist. (Hint: It wasn't because we had kamikaze pilots attack us periodically to roust us from our daydreams.)
If he did, he would see that we truly do not need Moslem totalitarians -- even to goad us on further to present them with the premature end they want and richly deserve. What we need is to rediscover that we have a moral right to our lives and freedom, that protecting those things is what war is for, and that it is up to us to take control of our own destiny.
How many such attacks will we need, Mr. Bykovsky, before we stop talking about all military options being on the table ... while on our way to the negotiating table with Iran, with all kinds of options -- for selling out to them? How many more "security talks" will we tolerate our wartime President holding with the likes of Iran and North Korea? And how long will it be before our leaders selling out to open enemies in "response" to the slaughter of our citizens (and threats of more) become the "normal" way of doing business?
That last one was a trick question, but maybe not if you weren't saying, "Too late!" as you read it.
Our current lack of resolve is due in part to our cultural deterioration since World War II and in part to a perfectly understandable reaction to our leaders failing to actually fight the war. More attacks might stir us up a bit for awhile ... until they slowly seem more "normal", or action more futile. Think we're in a stupor now? Just wait until we've endured a few more "cycles of nonviolence" in response to the Islamic totalitarians. But then, I somehow think that that's their whole hope.
Rather than rooting for the theocrats, might I suggest, in the way of understanding where we're going wrong and how to fix it, reading "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, and "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" by John Lewis.
Our enemy is almost as pathetic as the god he worships. And without our moral paralysis, he'd be just as real by now.