The Redhunter

Lest anyone be in doubt as to the Curtis' point of view, the review in the Guardian tells us that

During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

Even before the start of the Cold War the left never believed the Soviet Union to be a threat. Far from it. They saw the communist experiment as one of hope for the future of mankind. After returning from a visit to the Soviet Union in 1921, Lincoln Stefans famously proclaimed that "I have seen the future, and it works."

Far from a threat, the "Old Left" saw it as the saviour of mankind.

We're all familiar with the run-up to the Second World War. The British and French ignored what today seem to us as obvious signs that Hitler would settle for nothing less than European domination. The idea that Hitler was anyting more than a nuisance was dismissed by the "enlightened" crowd. Churchill? Well, he was uncouth, a loudmouth, and everyone knew that he drank too much.

When the Cold War started up in the late '40s, again we were told that we were overreacting. Far from being a threat, the Soviet military buildup was simply a response to an understandable fear of us. It was the Soviet Union, we were told, who was surrounded by unfriendly states. We threatened them, and we should learn to understand their position.

The movement received new vigor with the rise of the "New Left" (their own term) in the 1960's, and reached it's climax with the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Carter went so far as to tell us that we had an "inordinate fear of communism."

What ultimately saved the West in each of these examples was not a new military weapon, or better intelligence, or the employment of some new military tactics or strategy. It was willpower. The resolve to stand up and stare down our enemy even, or perhaps especially, in the face of opposition from within.

The key to winning the War on Terror, then, is not military (although it is crucial), nor improvement of our intelligence capabilities (though surely we must), or even a repackaging of our message (which has been neglected). The key lies in Willpower and Resolve. We must develop what I call a philosophy of "anti-nihilism." For unlike what the multi-culturalists would have us believe, our beliefs and values are better than those of the Islamic world. There is an objective truth, and it is that freedom is the best hope for mankind.

And we are indeed in a War on Terror. It is real. Al Qaeda is not a fiction of our imagination, any more than the communists in the United States were during the '30s and '40's were. As the Venona transcripts have shown, there was a serious espionage threat from the Soviet Union. We today are faced with a similar infiltration that will likely only be exposed in it's entirety many years from now. We already have enough evidence to understand the threat.

We all remember the heady days following the attacks of Sept 11. The extreme left kept out of sight. Only a few, Susan Sontag among them, dared to say anything controversial. Her wrongheaded commets made a bit of a splash, then faded from the scene. Only Norman Podhoretz forsaw that the left would rise to oppose this war with all the ferocity they could muster.

It didn't take long, however, for indications of trouble to appear. There was the manufactured "controversy" over whether we should continue our attacks in Afghanistan during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Some who said we should stop the bombing were trying to be genuinly helpful. They feared an uprising by the "Arab Street." But others seemed to be using it as the excuse of-the-day to stop the war. Any reason would do, and this was the must convenient for the moment.

Had we hesitated we would have set a terrible precident. We would have given hope to our enemies and demonstrated weakness instead of resolve. War is, indeed, a terrible business. It is a measure of our humanity that we may wish to delay or avoid bloodletting. There are times, however, when we must carry forward.

None of this is to be construed as advocating indiscriminate killing. I am a firm believer in the Just War principles of proportionality and discrimination.

Nor am I saying that anyone who opposes the invasion of Iraq, or who has criticisms of how we are conducting the War on Terror, is a member of the Fifth Column. You can vote for Kerry and be a patriotic American. You can oppose the invasion of Iraq, although I will disagree with you. You can even wish that we involve the UN and French more, although I will really disagree with you.

What distinguishes members of the Fifth Column are their utter lack of constructive criticism, their blind "peace" mantra, those who apologize for American actions, or those who seek to tell us that it is all in our heads, that Al Qaeda doesn't really exist or is not a threat.

For additional reading, you may enjoy these books. I must warn you, however, they can be profoundly depressing at times.

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba by Paul Hollander
Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad 1965 - 1990 by Paul Hollander
Useful Idiots: How Liberals got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First by Mona Charen

Update

I was reading Paul Hollander's Anti-Americanism again last night and came upon this passage

The people I have in mind - who belong to this broader adversary culture - can be identified by a number of beliefs. Among them is that American intervention almost anywhere in the world is without moral justification. They also aver that the United States bears the lion's share of responsibility for the sufferings of the poor in the Third World. They include prosperous white middle-class people who voted for Jesse Jackson, thosse who would not register for the draft (or who support and encourage nonregistration). They are citizens for whom all American military expenditure is wasteful, who claim to have sleepless nightts over the prospect of nuclear war and press for making their towns "nuclear free zones"(and "sister cities" of those in the USSR and Nicaragua), people who in any conceivable conflict between the U.S. and other powers instinctively place the blame on the U.S., those among the college educated who are persuaded that Orwell's1984 captures most aptly the characteristics of contemporary America. They can also be identified by sporting bumper stickers proclaiming "US out of North America" and "This Country Was Build on the Bones of Indians." They are inclined to believe that the United States is a uniquely hypocritical and destructive society that failed to live up to it's promises. They are for the most part people of goodwill anhd frustrated idealism, persuaded that in no other country are social ideals and practices so far apart as in the United States of America.

It is these people, then, who hate the very concept of a "War on Terror". "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is their motto. I said it above, and I'll say it again; I am not speaking of those who simply have honest disagreements over how to fight the terrorists, or those who oppose the invasion of Iraq (again, as long as they do it for honest reasons), or even those who think that we should adopt a more "law enforcement" model.

Rather, I speak of those such as Michael Moore, who make "documentaries" filled with lies and half truths, and of his followers. This even includes a past president, Jimmy Carter, who invited Mr Moore to sit with him in his box at the Democratic National Convention. The writers of the BBC documentary discussed above also appear to fit into this category. Most of those who protested outside the Republican National Convention in New York also fit into this category of a "Fifth Column".

Those of us who dare to call these people by their true name can expect vituperation in return. "McCarthyite!" will be among the more tame insults we will endure. But as I've said, the key to winning this war is not about military force, or intelligence gathering, or by broadcasting a better "message", although these things are important. The key is Willpower and Resolve in the face of trials and troubles. The words of Thomas Paine come to mind

These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the servive of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Jamie at Conservapuppies has an excellent post on the BBC "documentary". Check it out.

Update III

After happening upon some leftist websites and blogs, I've just got to write this: Anyone who calls our country, Republicans, or George W Bush "fascist" is a member of the Fifth Column.

Posted by Tom at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

What Oil-for-Food Scandal?

Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations, finds it "inconceivable" that Russia, France or China might have been influenced in Security Council debates by Saddam Hussein's Oil for Food business and bribes. "These are very serious and important governments," Mr. Annan told Britain's ITV News Sunday. "You are not dealing with banana republics."

And Mr. Kerry wants us to get a permission slip from this organization before we use military force. Unless he's in the Senate and it's 1991. Or maybe unless he's speaking before a veterans group.

Quote from editorial by Claudia Rosett in the Opinion Journal.

Hat tip Jane at Armies of Liberation.

Posted by Tom at 10:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 18, 2004

"The War was a Good Cause"

In the face of almost daily bombings and attacks on our troops in Iraq, how are they holding up? Is their morale still strong? This article in today's Washington Times lays our fears to rest

Recent interviews with Sgt. Doughty (who lost both legs to an IED) and other troops rebutted talk in some quarters of troops' growing disillusionment with the U.S. mission in Iraq. The interviews included a Marine corporal also being treated for wounds at Walter Reed and men in a National Guard unit in northern Iraq that faced renewed attacks from insurgents in recent days.
...
Although Sgt. Doughty didn't aim to become a Green Beret, he quips that he was getting to be one through "on-the-job training" after his reassignment to an intelligence slot in the 5th Special Forces Group. He previously was trained in tactical intelligence and as a medic.

His unit had two missions: searching for those on the "black list," the higher-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's toppled regime, and training new Iraqi security forces.

For security reasons, he declines to specify where his unit was when it was ambushed in the Sunni triangle, which stretches from Ramadi in the west to Baghdad in the east and Tikrit in the north.

To himself and his fellow wounded, Sgt. Doughty says, "The war was a good cause."

Posted by Tom at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

"What Went Wrong?"

I must admit that I drew in my breath when I saw the cover of the latest National Review last week. There is a haunting picture of an Iraqi woman looking out of a window on the cover, and she has a fearful look on her face.

"What Went Wrong?" was on the cover

I hurredly looked at the table of contents and saw what I'd expected

The story of the Iraq post-war is, in part, a tale of gross intelligence failures, debilitating intramural battles, miscommunications, unintended consequences, and counterproductive half-measures. Some of these missteps were the result of the inevitable uncertainties and surproises of warfare, others of incompetence, and many of something in between.

The article is recommended reading for all of you. Of course I'm sure you're already subscribers, so you're ahead of me. If not, run out to a bookstore or news stand and purchase a copy. And for heaven's sake subscribe. You can do so on-line here.

If Bush-haters are expecting vindication from Lowry's article, however, they will be sorely disappointed. He dismisses their arguments up front

By now, anyone who can't recite the standard critique of what has gone wrong in the Iraq war just hasn't been paying attention.

It goes something like this: There was no post-war planning. What little planning took place was spearheaded by the State Department, and then maliciously ignored by the ideologues at the Pentagon, who didn't want to hear a discouraging word about managing a liberated Iraq. Consumed by Rumsfeld's fixation on light forces, the Pentagon skimped on troop levels and ignored the advice of its commanders. Anyone who said anything inconvenient about the war was systematically punished. In this narrative, "Pentagon civilian" becomes a dirty phrase.

Indeed, virtually none of the horrors that the left warned us about took place. And, most maddenly of all, they never seem to be held accountable for it by the media (even Fox News misses this one). Remember how we were told that there would be a gigantic "Battle of Baghdad" that would surely tie down our forces for weeks of not months? That we would have to take the capital street-by-street? That were would be a humantarian crisis of gargantuan proportions? Or that Saddam's chemical or biological weapons would lay waste to the countryside (this last from a "peace" group)?

"What Went Wrong?" is the type of analysis that perhaps can only be written by someone with impeccable conservative credentials, and published in William F Buckley's trademark journal. Were it written by the likes of Seymore Hersh, we could dismiss it as the rantings of a Bush-hater who, as often as not, doesn't get his facts straight.

Lowry remains a supporter of our operations in Iraq, as do his sources. But he makes clear that we need to face some hard realities, too.

This type of article is long overdue. Let's face it: none of us who supported the invasion of Iraq thought that it would be this difficult. Who among us really expected the insurgency to go on for so long? Who expected that, almost a full year after the invasion, we would not be able to even enter several Iraqi cities with anything less than a batallion of troops, complete with air cover?

One of the biggest criticisms of the administration is that we do not have enough troops in Iraq. Both left and right say this. But Lowry points out that invading with a larger force, or even adding more troops later, would have created additional problems, too. And it is not at all clear that the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks. More troops would have A) Slowed down the initial invasion (costing more lives, giving Saddam a chance to torch the oilfields, and perhaps destabilizing the entire region), and B) Added to our problems now by creating more resentment among those in Iraq who see us as "occupiers."

One of his themes is that for every action you take, having done the opposite may have resulted a worse outcome. "Every strategic choice has it's benefits and drawbacks", Lowry points out. One wishes that war critics would at least acknowledge this point.

I am not going to go through the entire article, as I want you to do that yourself.

Would Kerry or the Democrats do any better? Given the nature of their critique, Lowry hardly thinks so:

Bush's critics, meanwhile, have had the luxury of irresponsibility that comes with being out of office, and have taken full advantage of it. They have indulged paranoid fantasies about the administration's "neocons," failed to offer constructive criticism, waged demagogic attacks based on Halliburton and all manner of other nonsense, fudged their answer to the all-important question of whether they would have invaded, and pounced on every hint of realistic analysis out of the administration (e.g., Rumsfeld's recent obvious statement that the Iraqi elections might not be perfect). Nothing in their performance during the Iraq episode marks them as deserving of power.

We can make Iraq succeed, and win this war.

Posted by Tom at 9:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 15, 2004

The Mary Cheney flap

As everyone who is not living in a cave knows by now, during the last debate John Kerry said the following

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

The Cheney's are furious. Yesterday, the Vice-President had this to say

Vice President Dick Cheney, a self-described "angry father," yesterday denounced Sen. John Kerry for bringing up his homosexual daughter during a debate with President Bush, calling the Democratic candidate "a man who will do and say anything to get elected."

"I am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father," the vice president told supporters at a rally in Fort Myers, Fla.

John Kerry seems to have realized that he made a mistake and has gone into damage-control mode

I love my daughters. They love their daughter. I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue

Why did He Say It?

One possibility is that Kerry was trying to convince Christian Conservatives not to vote for Bush/Cheney. The idea is "once they know that Cheney's got a gay daughter, they will stay home." In other words, Christian Conservatives are such bigots that they would not vote for someone who has a gay family member.

Another possiblity is that Kerry was pandering to the "gay vote." He is, after all, in a difficult bind. Minority voters are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and they make up a substantial Democratic party voting bloc. So Kerry can't offend them. But he wanted to go after gay voters, perhaps even siphon some off from the GOP, and saw this as a way to do it.

It seems like it was a planned comment, so it is hard to believe that Kerry said it by accident, making it hard to dismiss as a "gaffe."

So What of It?

This incident reveals a fundamental difference of how the left and right view sexuality in modern America. Gay groups saw Kerry's comment as "entirely appropriate," and Democrats have generally defended their candiatate.

Most Republicans simply want the issue of "gay marriage", and that of homosexuality in general, to go away. "Fine if you are gay, but I don't want to hear about it" has become the response of many Americans. The Cheney's are not "ashamed" of their daugher, as liberals would have us believe. She is, for heaven's sake, heavily involved in their campaign, albeit behind the scenes. What they do object to is her being used to score political points. You do not use the opposing candidate's child period.

To Democrats in general, and hard-core liberals in particular, this will not do. "The private is the public" is their motto. Witness the comments of John Edwards wife Elizabeth

"She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs. ... I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. ... It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response," Mrs. Edwards told ABC News Radio.