I read that Democrats are jumping for joy over the recent report that the war in Iraq is making more jihadists than we can kill. Of course I understand the joy of most Dems and all Leftists over this “news”, their knowledge of most things political and all things strategic is one headline deep, and this headline is quite promising.
However, just as I warned nearly a year ago about the Dem’s losing strategy based on their bizarre fascination with the ghoulish hag Cindy Sheehan (who would have long ago dug up her son’s corpse and draped it over her shoulders if it weren’t illegal), this issue is clearly a loser for the Dems because it won’t play well to the moderate voters that they need desperately this fall and in 2008. Sure, it’s a morale booster to the Left when they read this, but they are going to vote Dem anyway, if they bother to vote at all. But to understand why this will not play well to the moderates you have to look beyond the simple headline, and move into territory that is very uncomfortable for the Left, and scares the shit out of Dems, National Security.
First, you have to define the endstate you desire from “effective national security policy”. For people like me (admittedly not many), it would be something like the retention of freedoms I’ve enjoyed, and want passed on to my children. For the Dems and Leftists, at least as I can tell from their cheering of this report, the endstate they desire from effective national security policy appears to be fewer jihadists that want to attack America. Now to someone who doesn’t like to work their braincells too hard, this might seem like the same thing. But it is reports just like this, and their embrace by the Left, that clarify the differences between them and me.
If your goal is to have fewer America-Hating Jihadis (AHJs), then you embrace this report and believe it shows we can do that by pulling out of Iraq. Just as some Dems, and all Leftist, demand. Whether this will reduce the number of AHJs is questionable, but I’ll grant that it will, for the sake of removing that from the argument. Now, are we safer with the number of AHJs reduced from 10,000 to 8,000? Not really, it only took a few tens of AHJs to kill nearly 3000 Americans in a matter of a few hours on 9-11. And they did so long before the Iraq war started, so we know for sure that the Iraq war is not their only grievance against us. Logically, pulling out of Iraq now has no chance of reducing the number of AHJs to zero. So how do we get the number of AHJs down to a level that really represents a much safer America? Easy, we convert to islam. Each and every single American. And we institute sharia as the legal code of the land. That is the logical conclusion of the Dem’s tack on this. If anyone can think of another way to reduce AHJs to near zero, let me know. No, change that. Let your Congressmen know, because they ain't got a clue of how to do it.
My take on effective national security, retention of my and my family’s freedom, cannot be reached by the Dem’s tack. I don’t think it matters one iota how many AHJs there are in the world, and I personally don’t believe we can ever get them down to a level where we can claim America is safe from AHJs for a very long time. Islam itself, and muslims worldwide, need to move into the 21st Century before that will happen, as the reaction to the Pope's recent comments made clear. Once again. My take on this is that we are at war with AHJs, and we need to kill those we can and render the rest ineffective. I’m not alone in this belief. The entire underpinning of the Department of Homeland Security is based on the latter, rendering them ineffective. The entire underpinning of the war in Afghanistan was based on the former, killing those who mean us harm. The Iraq war started out as the former (though now we know the intel was faulty on this), and has now evolved into a combo of the two. There is no way that you can reach my definition of effective national security policy by reducing freedoms (mandatory 100% conversion to islam and institution of sharia), since my very definition of requires the maintenance of my freedom. And I know what the costs are for my definition, my family and I have borne those costs now for 22 years.
There are hundreds of other things that go into an effective national security policy, but this report was about AHJs, and so this post is in response to that alone to keep it simple, and understandable to Lefties.
So there we have it. One view of national security that logically leads to the Islamic Caliphate of America, and one view of national security that logically leads to maintenance of freedom through defeating our enemy no matter what the cost.
Let the voting begin.