Just Say "No" To Future 9-11's
By Robert E. Meyer (03/17/04)
The recent terrorist bombings is Spain serve as another poignant reminder of why the war on terrorism is a battle of eternal vigilance. These senseless attacks also offers us a solemn reminder that war on terror is not merely a United States thing--but an attack on peace-loving people around the globe.
The attacks of 3-11 may have the same long-term polarizing affects that 9-11 has wrought in the two-and-a-half years since that day of infamy. Citizens of the civilized world will delineate their positions along the lines of one of two basic approaches. The approach of pacifism, is generally one of capitulation and appeasement. It can be likened to a scenario where one is locked in a cage with a ferocious lion You can't kill the beast and you can't get out of the cage, all you can do is feed it and hope it isn't hungry enough to make you a meal. The second approach recognizes that there is real evil in the world, and acknowledges that this evil must be destroyed before evil destroys us. This view rightly recognizes that you can only negotiate with people who are interested in reconciliation, not with those whose aim is your destruction. Liberty-loving people must be able to live outside of the cage.
Ultimately the greatest threat to peace is pacifism itself. Recall the words of English statesman Edmond Burke, who declared that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for men of good will to do nothing". The late columnist Michael Kelly wrote an editorial piece shortly after the attack on America. He compared our current peace movement with an observation made by George Orwell in the prologue of Britain's involvement in WWII. Orwell suggested that the pacifists were functionally pro-Nazi, because they delayed military actions via protest, that enabled the Nazis to become stronger. Many celebrities in America are ringleaders of the mindless opposition that is capable of producing the same result. It seems to have more to do with hatred of our president, then any critical thinking about alternatives.
A local protest group was demonstrating weekly in my home town prior to the Iraq war. They were passing out handbills that said an attack on Iraq would produce one million new terrorists. My counter was that capitulation to terrorism might create two million new terrorists. These terrorists view restraint as a sign of weakness, and an opportunity to strike.
Let me present two scenarios. First of all, we tell an Iraqi citizen that if we invade his country, he will have the freedom to be a voice in the new government of his country. He will also be free of the terrible dictator, who so terrorizes his own people. So what does this guy say, "no thanks, I hate the idea of liberty"? Now on the other hand, we have decadence and pornography even during the half-time of the Superbowl. We have T.V. sitcoms that glorify everything that was abhorant only a generation ago. This programming is perhaps the limited exposure this individual has to American culture and the character of her people. Now which sort of concern will mobilize the average Iraqi male citizen with a zeal to become a terrorist? The "threat" of true liberty over his destiny, or the thought that becoming "americanized" means that everyone will become like the limited portraits of Americans he views from the media he is exposed to?
He may say, we don't want your divorces, the unwed pregnancies of our daughters, the glorification of homosexuality, the vile profanity--none of which are essential components of a free society. Now he has a cause worthy of taking up arms. The strange irony here, is that the same people who preach unqualified peace so fervently, do the most in terms of celebrating the wayward lifestyles that augur fanatical reactions. The Hollywood culture is the typical example.
That is not to say I am endeavoring to justify anything the murderous thugs of 9-11 or 3-11 have done. My point is that the people who are seeking to avoid inflaming terrorism, might well be looking in the wrong places.
Notice that the typical liberal today puts little priority on the importance of moral standards, in determining whether a country is on the right course. How often do we hear this spiel: "why are we so worried about a little skin at the Superbowl, or stopping homosexuals from exercising their constitutional rights, when we have a president in the White house who lied to get us into an unnecessary war. We have people without jobs, without health care, and environmental problems." Are issues of morality somehow separate, rather than symptomatic of these other problems? And it is the foremost moral principle constitutionally for a government to protect it's people from aggression outside or inside the borders.
Many years ago there was a popular saying that was bandied about concerning Communism: "by conquest or consent". The idea was that international Socialism could use either method to overtake a country. We see the same trend in the spread of radical terrorism. So many countries are afraid to take steps in the war against terrorism because they fear internal reprisals. In a sense they have consented. In today's world, the idea of promoting a strong national and moral indentity is equated to jingoism and bigotry. Those countries are ripe for conquest.
Notice that many liberals are so upset about alienation of some old European allies? None of them have considered that maybe it is the "enlightened" Europeans who need to get off their collective butts and get with the program? I have. Moral clarity is about doing what must be done despite certain negative consequences. The only hope there is for me and you is if the rest of the world loves their God-given freedom too!
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert E. Meyer
