« Calling all Washington DC Area Bloggers | Main | Duty, Honor, Country »
May 25, 2006
The Anti-Anti-Terrorists
During the Cold War there were three groups of people in the West
1) The pro-communists
2) The anti-communists
3) The anti-anti-communists
Contrary to what some would tell you, yes there really was a communist movement in the United States. While it never stood a chance of overthrowing our government, if given a chance it might have influenced policy more than it did. Fortunately, many communists were exposed, some of the spies, such as Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg.
Liberals like to tell us that they participated in helping to defeat the Soviet Union and-how-dare-you-suggest-otherwise. And this is partially true. More precisely, it depends on the timeframe. Prior to the late 1960s we did have a species known as a liberal hawk. They were typified by presidents such as Harry Truman and John F Kennedy Jr, by senators such as Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and by philosophers such as Sidney Hook. During this time, many social liberals were staunch anti-communists.
But all this had changed by the early 1970s. Many liberals spent most of the next two decades opposing US efforts to stop the spread of communism, especially in Central America. They began to oppose every weapons system, from strategic weapons such as the MX and B-1 to theater weapons such as cruise missiles and Pershing IIs. There was never a Soviet proposal they didn't like, and rarely one by Reagan that they did. Some, but not all, became anti-anti-communists, more obsessed with opposing the efforts of anti-communists than anything else. It was at this time that some liberals broke with the Democrat party and became Republicans, calling themselves "neo-conservatives." They retained their (what was considered them) social liberalism, but realized that the Democrat party no longer represented their views on foreign policy.
The New Paradigm
The War on Terror has spawned three groups which closely mirror the ones of the Cold War
1) The pro-terrorists
2) The anti-terrorists
3) The anti-anti-terrorists
Let's go through them one at a time.
The Pro-Terrorists
Fortunately, there aren't very many. Unfortunately, when they do rear their heads they aren't always labeled as such.
One example of a pro-terrorist is Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in February 2005 of providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government and making false statements.
Examples of pro-terrorist groups would be Code Pink, who in December of 2004 donated $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq." Another is International ANSWER, which is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The various groups who participated in the June 2005 "International Tribunal", in which the sanctioned the killing of US troops in Iraq, certainly qualify as pro-terrorist(see section I. 11. in the link).
Although they portray themselves as anti-war, they're not. They're pro-terrorist.
Others are more borderline between pro-terrorist and anti-anti-terrorist. One wonders if the people who make up the Christian Peacemaker Teams are pro-terrorist or just naive "useful idiots."
The Anti-Terrorists
You do not have to believe that invading Iraq was a good idea to be an anti-terrorist, so let's get that out of the way right now.
Nor do you have to be a Republican. Democrats such as Senators Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden qualify as anti-terrorists.
However, you do have to think that since we are there we have to win it to qualify. Iraq is now part of the WOT whether anyone likes it or not. Failure to recognize that is crucial.
More importantly, though, is your answer to questions such as these:
What do you spend the balance of your time thinking about: how to win the War on Terror, or how terrible a person you think President Bush is.
Are most of your ideas on how to better interrogate suspects so that we get the information we need, or are you more concerned with protecting their real and imagined civil liberties?
Do you truely believe that we are in a war, or do you think that "the terrorist thing" is something best handled by international agreements and better police work?
Do you think we brought 9-11 on ourselves?
Do you think that the UN can play a useful war in helping to win the War on Terror?
Do you believe that the spread of democracy (which yes I know involves more than just voting) is crucial to defeating the terrorists?
I don't think I need to spell out which answers make you an anti-terrorist and which make you an anti-anti-terrorist.
The Anti-Anti-Terrorists
No anyone who complains about some aspect of how the Bush Administration is fighting the War on Terror is an anti-anti-terrorist. Yes, it is ok to question some of our intelligence-gathering efforts. But re-read the questions above. What do you spend most of your time thinking about; how to capture or kill terrorists, or whether some aspect of your civil rights are being violated? Yes civil rights are important, but if that's what you spend most of your time worrying about you're not being of help in winning the War on Terror.
Representative Jack Murtha is an anti-anti-terrorist. Cindy Sheehan also qualifies. Groups such as Moveon.org and the ALCU certainly seen to spend most of their time thinking of ways to thwart our efforts. For that matter, most of the "anti-war" groups listed on David Horowitz' DiscoverTheNetwork.org are anti-anti-terrorist, if not outright pro.
Worse, though, is when the national media join in. While Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post is capable of some very good reporting, sometimes I have to wonder which side of the WOT he and his newspaper are on, like when he breathtakingly reported what our military was engaged in a campaign to turn Iraqis against al-Zarqawi.
Sorry, but there is a Fifth Column in this country, and they are making it difficult to win.
Posted by Tom at May 25, 2006 9:08 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/662
