For Fear Of Making Them Angry

In yet another example of Democrat insistence on clinging to a set of positions despite facts – or even inherent inconsistencies – that stare them in the face, Senator Edward Kennedy has spoken out on the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Having recently returned from a trip to Camp Gitmo, Mr. Kennedy offered the requisite compliments to those servicemen and women who currently serve there, saying that he is “impressed with the quality and the dedication, the commitment and the training” that American troops are displaying there. Yet in the same breath, he reiterated his position that this camp – that is run by such qualified and dedicated personnel – should be closed, due to the fact that it has “inflamed terrorists all over the world.” Without knowing for sure what the Senator has in mind when he makes this statement, one is presented with two possibilities.

One possibility is that terrorists have been motivated to commit further atrocities against innocent people as a result of the stories of abuse at the base that have made the rounds. The only problem is that none of these stories thus far have proven to be true. In other words, if Camp Gitmo is an incitement to terrorists, it is not the result of what has taken place there. It is the result of what some have – erroneously – said has taken place there.

Not that this would be terribly surprising. The bar is remarkably low that has to be reached to incite Islamist murderers to carry out their acts of terror. Such acts that have inflamed them in the past have included the publishing of a book, or the simple existence of a nation. Untrue reports of abuses would fall right into line with these examples. But all this would mean that a high-ranking Democrat is advocating the changing of U.S. wartime policy based on unfounded rumor – not the best thing for the party’s National Security image.

Not that the other possibility makes them look much better. This would be an acknowledgement that the detention facility incites the terrorists by its simple existence, and its function of keeping their comrades from carrying out their indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. If this is what is “inflaming” the terrorists, it won’t matter where the prisoners are held, only the fact that they are being held. Thus, the way to stop inciting terrorism is to stop opposing terrorism in this way.

In either case, what Senator Kennedy, and others like him, advocates would be tantamount to acknowledging that terrorism is a legitimate means of influencing policy. How could his reasoning for the base’s closure – that it inflames terrorists – be interpreted any other way?

And this is, after all, one of the principal aims of terrorism. American policy has traditionally been that the United States would not negotiate with terrorists – implying that it would not establish or alter policy at the point of a terrorist gun. To do so would be to invite further acts of terror in the future when they decide there is something else they want out of the west, and thus result in the deaths of more innocents. Yet this is the very thing that leading Democrats like Edward Kennedy would have America do.

It is acknowledged by most that terrorists will never be completely eradicated from the face of the earth. But this does not change the fact that U.S. policy should always be geared toward discouraging the use of such tactics and deterring states from any relationship with those who do use such tactics. If taking actions to oppose further random acts of violence against human beings inflames terrorists, then let them be inflamed.