Contributed by: filbert Wednesday, April 12 2006 @ 08:19 AM CST
Four years into the “war on terror,” the Bush administration has begun promoting a new formulation: “the long war.” Not a reassuring name. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs–our strengths. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower–their strengths, and our great weakness. Even a loser can win when he’s up against a defeatist. A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us? If you add to the advantages of will and manpower a nuclear capability, the odds shift dramatically.
Meanwhile, a large portion of the credit for the current world situation can be given to the esteemed former President James E. Carter[*2] .
Are you really willing to bet the entirety of western liberal civilization on the premise that the Islamic extremists don’t mean exactly what they say? Jimmy was, and we are now reaping the whirlwind of his misjudgment. Frankly, I think the Bush Administration is also badly mismanaging the world situation, not by being too aggressive, but by being too timid a la the Carter Administration. Much of that timidity is due to the rabid resistance of the left. It’s not so much that I’m for Bush, it’s just that the alternatives are much, much, much worse. If there was a Democrat who understood that it’s 1936 all over again, I wouldn’t be nearly as concerned as I am.
Via Hugh Hewett[*3] among others . . .