September 29, 2006
Are we safer than we were prior to 9/11? The media have been obsessed with this question ever since a leaked National Intelligence Estimate stated there were more terrorists in Iraq after our invasion than before. The left-wing sharks in Congress and their willing accomplices in the news media began circling for the feeding frenzy. The Bush administration went into damage control mode, a purely defensive maneuver, when they actually should have gone on the offensive.
Here's why:
In wartime it should be expected that an escalation of action against the enemy will rally more to their cause. Does anyone actually think we were safer three years into World War II than we were prior to Pearl Harbor ? Japanese and German nationalism reached a peak once the United States entered the war. We were in wartime mode and the prospect of an enemy attack on our shores weighed heavy on our collective minds. The entire country got behind the war effort. Industry, the people, and the government all worked in tandem to defeat the enemy.
We saw a spark of that old patriotism for a fleeting moment just after 9/11. Politicians laid aside their partisan bickering for a scant blink of the eye. Once the president decided on our course of action, the back-biting and jockeying for political position resumed. Thanks to the demagogues in Congress, the America haters in the ACLU, and the negative naysayers of the blogosphere the old days of rallying around the flag are gone.
We must either believe we're at war with the terrorists or we're not. War knows no middle ground. The president's promulgation that “you're either with us or you're with the terrorists” was not just for international consumption. Americans needed to take his words to heart, too but, sadly, many did not. Consumed with using captured terrorists against us, the so-called civil libertarians set their agenda in motion. It was an agenda that attempts to use our own liberties against us.
Even some Republicans in Congress screeched that we should adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Congress came to agreement on legislation governing military tribunals for terrorist detainees that was almost identical to the rubric followed by the administration. In short, enemy combatants – under the Geneva Conventions, no less – can be held for the duration of the war. The resolution of that little spat was a huge blow to those who have attempted to use our own Constitution against us.
That's not to say that criticism should not be allowed in time of war. However, there is a distinct difference between constructive criticism and de structive criticism. When I admonish the administration over not closing our borders that is criticism designed to augment the war effort, not destroy it. In other words, constructive criticism comes with offers of how to do things better. Heretofore, the verbal snipers in Congress have only offered shrill denunciation without any solutions.
With the specter of an ‘American Hiroshima' looming, there's no question that we're less safe than we were prior to 9/11. The irony is this American Hiroshima plan – where terrorists plan to set off multiple nuclear weapons – was hatched over a decade ago, long before we invaded Iraq and long before September 11. In other words, the terrorists have been planning to escalate the war whether we join them or not. Going into Iraq may have flushed out more terrorists but it has also greatly reduced their ability to wage jihad against America .
It's only natural that our enemies would rally behind their leaders when faced with stiff opposition. We're fools if we don't do the same.