The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Monday, June 06, 2005
The Media: winning the war for al Queda
Rich Moran is on the same wavelength as I have been over the last few days; except he flat out says the msm is actually winning the war for bin Laden and company. He does have a point in that bin Laden has said from the very beginning: [to paraphrase] that America does not have the will it will take to beat a hardened opponent over time. Especially with its media doing its utmost to undermine that effort. Moran argues that this appears to be exactly what is beginning to happen, thanks to the unrelenting attacks on our war effort, leadership, and the military in general.
Moran displays far more control over his anger about all this than I have been able to do, but perhaps the toned down vitriol in his post in The American Thinker will get the point across in a way that my anger and red meat could not. It is well worth the read.
A couple of snippets:
And yet the opponents of this war - most of whom are good Americans who love their country as much as any of us- are playing directly into al Qaeda 's hands. Unable to defeat us on the battlefield, unwilling to confront us directly, al Qaeda is using its battlefield defeats - the capture and detention of its soldiers - to turn our successes upside down and put the United States government on the defensive. And the opponents of the war, seizing upon this sidebar issue with a fervor reminiscent of a revivalist reverend preaching hellfire and damnation, are unwittingly following the game plan of our enemies, by excoriating the Bush Administration for its alleged failure to uphold American values. The anti-war crowd is using traditional grips and handholds in the political mud wrestling going on over the war. This begs the question: Who do they think the enemy is: Bush or al Qaeda? For that matter, when was the last time you heard or read anyone from the anti-war left actually using the pejorative "enemy" to describe our opponent?
In effect, much like their Democratic Party forbearers who took Abraham Lincoln to task for a variety of issues not directly related to the Civil War, including the suspension of Habeas Corpus and questions about what constitutes free speech in wartime, Bush's political opponents rarely, if ever, mention the reason we fight. Instead, their constant carping about prisoner abuse seems to be having its desired effect; the American people are losing confidence in the President to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion and are becoming more anxious about our War on Terror in general.
Anyone who doesn't believe that this is part of our enemies’ strategic thinking is disingenuous or naive. Despite Michael Moore's portrayal of Bin Laden and his cohorts as ignorant savages living in caves, many of the top leadership in al Qaeda are college educated - many of them matriculated at some of the finest colleges and universities in the west - and are keen students of both the Western media and Western attitudes. A translated copy of the al Qaeda Training Manual reveals a deep understanding of not only what makes the American people tick, but how to roil the streets of the Islamic world and bring the masses to their side.
The next significant test for American resolve in the War on Terror is in 2008. While the election last year could have been considered a referendum on the Iraq conflict and hence of surpassing significance for that reason alone, it's devoutly to be hoped that by 2008 the mass of troops currently stationed in that country will be redeployed and American casualties will have virtually ceased. If that's the case (and I believe the Administration will make it so whether completely warranted or not) then the Democratic candidate will have an interesting decision to make about an overarching theme for the campaign.
And further down, this:
The sad fact is, the constant drumbeat about prisoner abuse has lowered the morale of the American people and made them question not only the tactics, but fundamental tenets about the necessity for the War on Terror. And since the next attack on our homeland will not be blamed on terrorists per se, but rather on the personal leadership of the President, the anti-war crowd will be able to use any such assault as a political weapon to attack the way we are currently fighting this war. They will turn the country's gaze away from fighting terrorists elsewhere to battening down the hatches at home and withdrawing from the fight. In a supremely ironic twist to Harding's reasons for a "return to normalcy," they will make the case that America is, in effect, too evil to lead this fight, and is better off letting the wiser, more virtuous heads in Europe and the United Nations take the lead. The enemy knows the only way to win the war in Iraq and elsewhere is if we voluntarily withdraw. In short, if we abjectly surrender. And in a conflict where many of us believe we fight for our existence, this is simply unacceptable.
But it is happening, every day. So what are we going to do about it? We stop supporting the media that is selling us down the river, that's what. See my post from yesterday.
Moran displays far more control over his anger about all this than I have been able to do, but perhaps the toned down vitriol in his post in The American Thinker will get the point across in a way that my anger and red meat could not. It is well worth the read.
A couple of snippets:
And yet the opponents of this war - most of whom are good Americans who love their country as much as any of us- are playing directly into al Qaeda 's hands. Unable to defeat us on the battlefield, unwilling to confront us directly, al Qaeda is using its battlefield defeats - the capture and detention of its soldiers - to turn our successes upside down and put the United States government on the defensive. And the opponents of the war, seizing upon this sidebar issue with a fervor reminiscent of a revivalist reverend preaching hellfire and damnation, are unwittingly following the game plan of our enemies, by excoriating the Bush Administration for its alleged failure to uphold American values. The anti-war crowd is using traditional grips and handholds in the political mud wrestling going on over the war. This begs the question: Who do they think the enemy is: Bush or al Qaeda? For that matter, when was the last time you heard or read anyone from the anti-war left actually using the pejorative "enemy" to describe our opponent?
In effect, much like their Democratic Party forbearers who took Abraham Lincoln to task for a variety of issues not directly related to the Civil War, including the suspension of Habeas Corpus and questions about what constitutes free speech in wartime, Bush's political opponents rarely, if ever, mention the reason we fight. Instead, their constant carping about prisoner abuse seems to be having its desired effect; the American people are losing confidence in the President to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion and are becoming more anxious about our War on Terror in general.
Anyone who doesn't believe that this is part of our enemies’ strategic thinking is disingenuous or naive. Despite Michael Moore's portrayal of Bin Laden and his cohorts as ignorant savages living in caves, many of the top leadership in al Qaeda are college educated - many of them matriculated at some of the finest colleges and universities in the west - and are keen students of both the Western media and Western attitudes. A translated copy of the al Qaeda Training Manual reveals a deep understanding of not only what makes the American people tick, but how to roil the streets of the Islamic world and bring the masses to their side.
The next significant test for American resolve in the War on Terror is in 2008. While the election last year could have been considered a referendum on the Iraq conflict and hence of surpassing significance for that reason alone, it's devoutly to be hoped that by 2008 the mass of troops currently stationed in that country will be redeployed and American casualties will have virtually ceased. If that's the case (and I believe the Administration will make it so whether completely warranted or not) then the Democratic candidate will have an interesting decision to make about an overarching theme for the campaign.
And further down, this:
The sad fact is, the constant drumbeat about prisoner abuse has lowered the morale of the American people and made them question not only the tactics, but fundamental tenets about the necessity for the War on Terror. And since the next attack on our homeland will not be blamed on terrorists per se, but rather on the personal leadership of the President, the anti-war crowd will be able to use any such assault as a political weapon to attack the way we are currently fighting this war. They will turn the country's gaze away from fighting terrorists elsewhere to battening down the hatches at home and withdrawing from the fight. In a supremely ironic twist to Harding's reasons for a "return to normalcy," they will make the case that America is, in effect, too evil to lead this fight, and is better off letting the wiser, more virtuous heads in Europe and the United Nations take the lead. The enemy knows the only way to win the war in Iraq and elsewhere is if we voluntarily withdraw. In short, if we abjectly surrender. And in a conflict where many of us believe we fight for our existence, this is simply unacceptable.
But it is happening, every day. So what are we going to do about it? We stop supporting the media that is selling us down the river, that's what. See my post from yesterday.
