The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

Where’s the War? The placidity of the domestic front

Posted by Atilla89 on September 10, 2007

Mark Steyn with some great analysis.

Six years on, most Americans are now pretty certain what they’ll wake up to in the morning: There’ll be a thwarted terrorist plot somewhere or other — last week, it was Germany. Occasionally, one will succeed somewhere or other, on the far horizon — in Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, London. But not many folks expect to switch on the TV this Tuesday morning, as they did that Tuesday morning, and see smoke billowing from Atlanta or Phoenix or Seattle. During the IRA’s 30-year campaign, the British grew accustomed (perhaps too easily accustomed) to waking up to the news either of some prominent person’s assassination or that a couple of gran’mas and some schoolkids had been blown apart in a shopping centre. It was a terrorist war in which terrorism was almost routine. But, in the six years since President Bush declared that America was in a “war on terror,” there has been in America no terrorism.

In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has “kept America safe.” But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: If a “war on terror” has no terror, who says there’s a war at all? That’s the argument of the Left — that it’s all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long. Judging from the blithe expressions of commuters doing the shoeless shuffle through the security line at LAX and O’Hare, most Americans seem relatively content with a permanent national-security state. It’s a curious paradox: airports on permanent Orange Alert, and a citizenry on permanent …well, I’m not sure there’s a homeland-security color code for “Gaily Insouciant,” but, if there is, it’s probably a bland limpid pastel of some kind. Of course, if tomorrow there’s a big smoking hole where the Empire State Building used to be, we’ll be back to: “The president should have known! This proves the failure of his policies over the last six years! We need another all-star Commission filled with retired grandees!”

And that would be the relatively sane reaction. Have you seen that bumper sticker “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB”? If you haven’t, go to a college town and cruise Main Street for a couple of minutes. It seems odd that a fascist regime which thinks nothing of killing thousands of people in a big landmark building in the center of the city hasn’t quietly offed some of these dissident professors — or at least the guy with the sticker-printing contract. Fearlessly, Robert Fisk of Britain’s Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side and written a piece headlined, “Even I Question The ‘Truth’ About 9/11.” According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That’s why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That’s how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.

Click here for the rest of it. Hat tip to LGF.


4 Responses to “Where’s the War? The placidity of the domestic front”

  1. Monte said

    Perhaps it’s because more Americans die in car wrecks that from the total of all terrorist attacks. Chances of Americans getting killed are about equal to chances of dying in an avalanche.

    George Bush has sent more Americans to their deaths than has Osama bin Laden.

  2. Atilla said

    Perhaps its the fact that Americans have lost touch with how dangerous terrorism, Monte? A good example is the your comment which pretty much shows how little you seem to care for national security.

    BTW as to your last sentence, lol! It’s not even worth a response, if you believe that, fine, I don’t think I can change it but it really shows how ignorant you are.

  3. Monte said

    Not trying to act stupid, here, just adding things up. Regarding my last sentence: Osama’s kills on Americans? Probably less than 3,000, including the WTC. American deaths in Iraq – including contractors, now pushing 4,000. It’s the way terrorists work against America – they get us worried enough to waste ourselves.

    And both of the statements before are true. Seems like 5,000-some die per year in auto wrecks. And the average risk to Americans of dying in a terrorist event is, in fact, almost identical to the risk of dying in an avalanche. I’ll document it if I need to – I think I still have the citations around.

    Terrorism is a real threat, and my thanks go out to those who protect us from it. But my point it that it is one of many, and it receives disproportionate dollars and loss of American life, and, as is the case with Iraq, it becomes justification for decisions that sacrifice military families for unrelated ideological regime changes. Politicians play their cards, grunts die, kids grow up without moms and dads. Not fair!

  4. Atilla89 said

    I’m curious; do you favour a non–interference foreign policy such as the one that was popular in America during the 1920’s? Because if you do, the reality is that it’s not going to work. Now I am not speaking as an American here, so I personally don’t care about American deaths on the road, but I do care about international terrorism and the threat that it poses to the world.

    So you would prefer…exactly what? If a person decided to go after terrorism world wide, as bush and a number of other politicians did, it’s not going to be a bloodless conflict, especially like the one in Iraq at the moment. Yes, everyone hopes that there are going to be no casualties, but it is not as if politicians deliberately say to themselves “hmm, I think we should go to Iraq and kill Saddam and hopefully kill off 4,000 of our own troops”.

    By the way, the justification for going into Iraq was because it broke 17 UN Security Resolutions. Not so unrelated when you think about it…

    Oh and with Osama, he has killed far more civilians (whether American, Iraqi, Afghani) during this conflict then anyone. I am not talking personally, I am talking about his organisation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: