America After The Next Attack
It is neither alarmist nor prophetic to state with grim certainty that America will, in the not too distant future, suffer yet another major Islamist attack, possibly dwarfing the enormity of 9-11. Since shortly after that event, forces both within our nation and abroad have diligently sought to undermine American resolve to appropriately respond to the enemy. As a result, that enemy now perceives a growing and broadening opportunity to eventually hit us again.
Barring a nearly miraculous rebirth of American determination to avert that possibility (and any remnants of such determination are rapidly dissipating from the mainstream of society), the Islamists will, sooner or later, fall upon a feasible occasion to strike, and they will use it.
Shortly after the American embassy workers were taken hostage by Iranian militants in November of 1979, Senator Ted Kennedy (D.-MA), who was vying for a presidential run, seized upon the situation as an opportunity to deride then President Jimmy Carter.
Unfortunately for Kennedy, his tactic proved to be badly timed, happening as it did during a period when the nation was attempting to rally around its leader. The backlash against Kennedy permanently ended his presidential ambitions.
Of course Carter’s performance during that crisis was just as abominable and inept as it was in any other, and the nation soon completely lost faith in him. Had Kennedy waited only a few months, he might have made his move with greater success. But by then, the stain on Kennedy’s reputation was indelible. Admittedly, Kennedy has never had much luck with his timing.
Similarly, those who in the immediate aftermath sought to turn the 9-11 attacks back on America and the current Presidential administration were themselves discredited. Yet as time has worn on, and the perseverance of the Islamists has strained the patience of a softened America, the invertebrates among us have desperately been searching for an easy way out of the present situation.
As cover for their cowardice, they claimed ownership of the presumed “moral high ground” and have set out to define the debate of the day, shifting traditional definition of patriotism and victory to the losing side. Ever since, they have been increasingly emboldened with their anti-American rhetoric and agenda. And among many whose singular goal has only ever been to find the comfortable “center,” the illusion of a peaceable solution becomes increasingly appealing.
However, a single obstacle presents itself to this scenario. America’s enemies in the Muslim world cannot and will not be placated or appeased. They must either be destroyed, or they will in turn destroy. In their pursuit of a global Islamic order, America stands as the biggest roadblock. If left unchecked, they will back up. They will reorganize. They will find a weakness. And they will attack again.
Now, with each passing day, increasingly dominant political forces in this country are sending signals that the time is right to renew their onslaught. In one area of the nations defenses after another, guards are being taken down. Only last week, President Bush announced his abandonment of an autonomous approach to the surveillance of incoming phone calls from overseas terrorists. Henceforth, this sensitive business will be handled by the FISA court.
The nature of the surveillance program was originally made public in a clear effort to create political scandal, and with total indifference to the harm that this revelation caused to national security. Does any sensible person believe that the same people who blew the lid off of the program in the first place will now keep quiet regarding its current operation parameters in order to prevent such invaluable information from falling into the hands of the nation’s mortal enemies?
Meanwhile, the ability of American troops to wage war, interrogate prisoners, or neutralize military threats have been systematically hamstrung by liberal politicians.
At stake in the minds of such people is the outcome of the 2008 elections. And even a compromise of national security, regardless of the horrendous consequences it might reap, must first be measured from the perspective of how it will help or hurt Democrat chances in ‘08.
Extreme as this accusation might seem, it is no more difficult to believe than that these people are, on a day-to-day basis (and despite their occasional “lip service” given to the troops), calculating their stance on the conduct of the war based solely on the political gain or liability it presents. In no other way can their constant, drastic flip-flops be explained.
So, in a manner every bit as reprehensible as Nero’s violin solo while Rome burned, the American left is playing a despicable game of “Russian Roulette” with the country’s future, banking on the misbegotten notion that they are either immune to attack, or that a future attack will not directly or personally affect any particular one of them. After all, even on the night of September 11, 2001, though badly shaken by the events of the day, most Americans went to bed safe and secure.
Ultimately, America cannot achieve victory against the forces of militant Islam, whether across the ocean or within its own borders, until it recognizes and effectively confronts the threat posed by the other war, being waged against its own traditions and culture. Present gaping holes in its defenses, the result of internal cultural rot, virtually beg for another attack.
And just how bad will that attack be? In stark simplicity, it will either be sufficient to convince America once and for all, to stiff-arm the absurdities of “political correctness” and properly deal with its own cultural insurgents as well as the Islamists, or it will be followed by others in its wake.
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com