History Says No Such Thing

By John

Putting 9/11 into perspective:
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

And until this becomes a war of attrition on American civilians, much like in Israel, the Right will be overreacting?

I doubt Bell applies that sharp historical perspective to Iraq, one of the lowest casualty conflicts in American history.

Lex nails it:

Hyperpartisans like Maha have spent so much time sneaking around trying to frighten each other with their Geo. W. Bush frightmasks, that they’ve blinded themselves to the real erosion in human liberty that occurs when you find a way to rationalize away the death of your own citizens - and after all, what more fundamental right exists than the right to life?

That right is an individual right, which is why the collectivists pooh-pooh it. They do this while piously spouting the dogma of identity politics and catechizing their victimization theology which combination more than anything else attempts to carve the electorate into ever-smaller groups of mutually antagonistic favor seekers snuffling at the trough of governmental dependency.

Which, ewww.

Yes, and that emphasis on the individual rights and freedoms is precisely what we're fighting to defend. When waging an ideological conflict, it's not the size of your army that matters. Ideas build and topple empires, Professor. And that's something I learned in High School history.

January 31, 2007 06:30 AM History

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/714

Comments

This is some horrendously jacked up logic. The author admits that our enemies are fanatical, dedicated, and devoted to our destruction, but finds that negligable simply because so far, their capabilities have fallen short of thier goals. If theres anything I've learned in this life, its that you don't bet on the size of the dog in the fight. You bet on the size of the fight in the dog. the author needs to throw a "yet" or two in those statements.

Apparently when comparing Hitlers capabilities to Al queda et als capabilities, he hasn't done much research on Hitlers forces prior to WWII. The Whermarcht, luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine were not truly forces to be reckoned with until the wars early days gave them confidence, zeal, and a nationalistic zeal that threw almost every german citizen into a fanatical zeal to win. The German military could have easily been broken during the opening shots of world war two if we (The allies) had been willing to strike a decisive blow. But somewhere between Neville Chamberlains acts of outright betrayal, and the French love of static defense, Hitler got his breathing space.

"what more fundamental right exists than the right to life?"

How about the right to freedom? How about the right not to live under a law where you are judged by your religion or or your ethnicity or even your gender?

Silly silly fool. If you are not willing to sacrifice your life for your rights, then you (or at least your children) will eventually be left with no rights.

Curtis · January 31, 2007 07:58 PM