Sept 11, 2001 was just as serious as Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a declaration of war against us. Years ago, extremists in the world of Islam declared war against us. After September 11, 2001 we finally declared war on Terrorism, but we’re not taking this war as seriously as we should. While terrorists will seek to find any means to strike at us, and refuse to fight “fairly” we often tie one of our hands behind our backs through political correctness so that we can have the “moral high-ground.”
On the epitaph of our culture they can write on our behalf, “They are dead, but at least they were morally superior.” Politically correct politics is ill-equipped to fight a foe like this. We might suggest that the main theory or driving force behind our politics these days is secularism. This is the understanding that religious views should be kept out of civic affairs and education.
To the secularist, all war must be eliminated. So I’m wondering, is it bad to wage war, but OK to engage in genocide? Case in point, Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein and his sons were very bad men. If you disagree with all the arguments that have been made about the need to go to war against his regime, consider what he was doing to his own people. Thousands and thousands were dying at the hand of this man. And now, they’re saying that to put this man to death was wrong!
The only good thing about anti-war protesters these days is that they’re too lazy and sedentary to go out and protest. It really is much better to be a pontificating couch potato. Or of course, they work for the media, or seem to, where it’s always acceptable and in vogue to say “We need to get out.” Or, “I’m against this military surge.” Or, “We need a change.” Or, “It’s Vietnam all over again.” Many young people I hear lately seem to parrot these thoughts. They’re against the war . . . just because.
Well my friends, it would seem that change has been voted in. The Democrats actually can force the issue by cutting off the money. However, do they want to have their cake and eat it too? Deep down, do they realize it would be irresponsible to leave Iraq right now, so they’re leaving things the way the are? And yet, they can claim that they’re against the war, even though they’re doing nothing to stop it.
“We’re not winning” is another platitude. Can you imagine? We ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan and we toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime quickly. Saddam and his sons are dead. Al-Qaeda has taken a lot of casualties. Imagine the similar things that were said about our wars of the past, “World War II, the Civil War.” Those wars were won, because men had the courage to do what was hard.
One of the sad things about life today is that in general, people don’t have the willpower to do the hard things. This even includes basic civic duties. Just consider the many people who try to get out of jury duty. (I was selected a few years ago and did do my service.) Yet, in spite of our lack of willpower to do the hard and important things at home, we have an incredible volunteer fighting force. They are willing to fight and get the job done. Yet people say we should cut our losses now. Many liberals rail against Vice President Cheney or other conservatives like him because they never served (ahem, not that many of them served either).
However, we serve our nations in different capacities, and this should be honored. True, the military is a noble service. America right now is different. Many in my generation (and the present generation) never had to serve in the military. The first Gulf War was finishing just before I went into college. I still signed up for the Selective Service. If they had had a draft in my day I wouldn’t have run to Canada. I still wouldn’t run to Canada. I think most men worth their salt would not run either. However, I think it honorable that we serve our country at least in some way.
Plain and simple, the entire world (including many in the world of Islam) will be better off if the free world defeats terrorism. This is the moral high ground: that we do not let terrorist thugs run wild throughout the earth. That they are hunted down and pay the price as is necessary. This is the true moral high ground, if we have the stomach to carry it out. It will be dirty. We must be more ruthless than we presently are. There will be collateral damage. This doesn’t mean that we will break all the laws of war, but we must not let political correctness dictate how we fight war. We must not give up the element of surprise. Surprise is necessary in war. Yes, it takes great responsibility. But there is a greater good at stake here. If the line is not drawn, there will be more and more war, whether we like it or not. They will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives; our resolve must be greater to put them out of commission. Now you may be a Christian and have a moral objection to any kind of war. However, there are cases where war is justified. Even the Bible declares there is a time for war just as there is a time for peace (see Ecclesiastes 3). Sometimes the peace must be won. God also gives governments the power of the sword to put down enemies such as these (see Romans 13).
Terror is being beaten back. Ethiopia recently took it to the Islamists of Somalia who were fighting against the legitimate government of Somalia. The Islamists were driven into a corner of that country. These people have bitten off more than they can chew, and the more fronts they open, the more difficult it will be for them to beat the civilized world . . . as long as we have the will to fight, and refuse to lay down and die.
For the next two years, I hope that we take it to terrorism everywhere. I shudder to imagine what we’ll elect for a President in the next election. Does a liberal have the will to fight terrorism? There are some who understand. Britain’s Tony Blair is rather liberal, but he understands that the survival of the civilized world depends on fighting terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head. Joe Lieberman seems to understand.
“Same as it ever was . . .” Democrats will not cut it. Feel-good politics will not solve our nation's problems at home and abroad. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Osama Obama (as Ted Kennedy calls him), and John Kerry will not cut it. And after eight years of a relatively decent but now unpopular president, it may be difficult for people to stomach another Republican. But then again, Abe Lincoln was a dark horse, and if the next president is tough on terror, I’ll take a dark horse any day. –Cal Samuel August