Remember What It's All About
Last night’s presidential address to the nation on the war in Iraq might best be viewed as an attempt on the part of the Bush Administration to get back “on message,” and remind Americans of the context within which the current fighting takes place. Whether that attempt is successful will go a long way in determining if living with terrorism will become a fact of life in America – as it has in other places – because it will go a long way in determining if the American people will have the stomach to see the struggle through to the end.
Such an address has been long overdue, as the opponents of the President – abetted by their allies in the “mainstream” media – have been allowed to spin the current situation to suit their purposes, with very few corrective words coming from the White House. It is not surprising, then, that public support for the war has begun to wane.
This is because those unchallenged spins churned out by the Democrats have been quite effective at distracting the public from the larger overall goals in the ongoing war on terror. And, no doubt fearing that their strategy could be imperiled by what President Bush reminded the people of last night, the most prominent among them wasted no time in trying to pull the debate over the war back to within a framework that would support their political goals.
Maybe it’s because they possess the same short memory that they rely on the general public possessing, or maybe it’s just because they are willing to do anything, including distorting reality, to damage George Bush, but whatever the reason, their insistence on portraying the situation in Iraq as one in which the U.S. is losing, calling for a recall of the troops as soon as possible, overlooks an important fact – the American people are safer now than they were before the invasion took place. And this is, when all is said and done, the reason for the war in the first place.
Naturally, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took issue with this notion as he proclaimed that “Our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.”
Whether Osama bin Laden is still our most dangerous enemy could be subject to debate. But regardless of who may possess that esteemed title at the present, the fact is that the war has never been about capturing a single individual, any more than the Second World War was about capturing Adolph Hitler. It seems safe to say that, while they would love the opportunity to see bin Laden killed or captured and brought to justice, most Americans would be content to let him rot away in a cave somewhere for the next several years, so long as he could no longer do them or their families any harm.
Well, the fact is that tracking down and capturing a single individual who is determined not to be found and has the ability to find cover within a large portion of planet earth is a difficult business. And it may be several more years before bin Laden the fugitive becomes bin Laden the captive or casualty. But hasn’t Mr. Reid or any of his partisan colleagues noticed that neither he, nor any other terrorist leader, has killed anyone in America in nearly four years? Or would they attribute this merely to the fact that he must no longer be interested in attacking America?
What President Bush did last night was remind Americas of what he told them on September 11, 2001 – that living with terrorism is something that the United States chooses not to do, and that the struggle to eliminate it as a threat to the American way of life – or any other peace-loving nation’s way of life – is not a struggle that will be won quickly. Until it is won, better to fight it on their ground than on ours. And the brave men and women of the United States’ Armed Forces are guaranteeing that very scenario.
Naturally, it is distressing to think of American forces being, in effect, “magnets” attracting terrorists from several nations to Iraq. But fighting bad guys is what American soldiers do. And by fighting them in Iraq, they keep many of them from carrying their mayhem to other places. Places like New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Would the leading Democrats prefer that the battles be fought at those places once again?
Such an address has been long overdue, as the opponents of the President – abetted by their allies in the “mainstream” media – have been allowed to spin the current situation to suit their purposes, with very few corrective words coming from the White House. It is not surprising, then, that public support for the war has begun to wane.
This is because those unchallenged spins churned out by the Democrats have been quite effective at distracting the public from the larger overall goals in the ongoing war on terror. And, no doubt fearing that their strategy could be imperiled by what President Bush reminded the people of last night, the most prominent among them wasted no time in trying to pull the debate over the war back to within a framework that would support their political goals.
Maybe it’s because they possess the same short memory that they rely on the general public possessing, or maybe it’s just because they are willing to do anything, including distorting reality, to damage George Bush, but whatever the reason, their insistence on portraying the situation in Iraq as one in which the U.S. is losing, calling for a recall of the troops as soon as possible, overlooks an important fact – the American people are safer now than they were before the invasion took place. And this is, when all is said and done, the reason for the war in the first place.
Naturally, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid took issue with this notion as he proclaimed that “Our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.”
Whether Osama bin Laden is still our most dangerous enemy could be subject to debate. But regardless of who may possess that esteemed title at the present, the fact is that the war has never been about capturing a single individual, any more than the Second World War was about capturing Adolph Hitler. It seems safe to say that, while they would love the opportunity to see bin Laden killed or captured and brought to justice, most Americans would be content to let him rot away in a cave somewhere for the next several years, so long as he could no longer do them or their families any harm.
Well, the fact is that tracking down and capturing a single individual who is determined not to be found and has the ability to find cover within a large portion of planet earth is a difficult business. And it may be several more years before bin Laden the fugitive becomes bin Laden the captive or casualty. But hasn’t Mr. Reid or any of his partisan colleagues noticed that neither he, nor any other terrorist leader, has killed anyone in America in nearly four years? Or would they attribute this merely to the fact that he must no longer be interested in attacking America?
What President Bush did last night was remind Americas of what he told them on September 11, 2001 – that living with terrorism is something that the United States chooses not to do, and that the struggle to eliminate it as a threat to the American way of life – or any other peace-loving nation’s way of life – is not a struggle that will be won quickly. Until it is won, better to fight it on their ground than on ours. And the brave men and women of the United States’ Armed Forces are guaranteeing that very scenario.
Naturally, it is distressing to think of American forces being, in effect, “magnets” attracting terrorists from several nations to Iraq. But fighting bad guys is what American soldiers do. And by fighting them in Iraq, they keep many of them from carrying their mayhem to other places. Places like New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Would the leading Democrats prefer that the battles be fought at those places once again?
posted by JeffreyH | 1:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home