War = Earthquake?
Don Quixote on Sep 02 2006 at 7:15 pm | Filed under: America
In my continuing review of bumper stickers I saw one yesterday that said, “You cannot win a war any more than you can win an earthquake.” Leaving aside the silliness of this comparison, it can be used to make a point quite different than the bumper sticker owner intended. You can react to an earthquake by meeting the challenge and rebuilding or you can sit amidst the debris and complain about how terrible earthquakes are. Similarly, you can react to war by meeting the challenge and fighting for what you believe in or you can sit amidst the debris and complain about how terrible war is.
The little old lady driving the car with the bumper sticker had a second bumper sticker to tell us where she stands: “I’m already against the next war.” Knee-jerk liberalism has morphed into mindless pacifism.
Bookworm sometimes sounds as if she thinks leftists want to destroy America. For the most part, I disagree. If you talked to the little old lady with the bumpers, I’ll bet you find that she loves America very much. She just wants an America that is so decent, so downright nice, that the rest of the world will not be able to avoid responding in kind. The scary thing is that a growing number of Americans believe this is a practical approach to the world. The truth, of course, is that much of the world would laugh in delight at the little old lady’s bumper stickers, seeing them as announcements of America’s weakness and ultimate demise. Much of the world would happily encourage America to be nice, and decent and soft, the better to destroy America.
What worries me is that if 9/11 didn’t demonstrate to these folks the foolishness of mindless pacifism, if dozens of terrorist acts around the world didn’t do it, if the foiled threat to blow up airplanes didn’t do it, if open declarations of jihad didn’t do it, what will? To what dire depths must America fall before the eternally optimistic little old ladies will realize what a dangerous world we live it?
I love that little old lady and I love America. America has an optimistic, loving, caring, generous heart. But these are times that require hard-headed realism, not soft-hearted wishful thinking. I fear America will listen to its heart, not its head. And I fear for America.
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “War = Earthquake?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There’s a difference between the party followers, i.e. the foot soldiers, and the party leaders, i.e. the officers. Just as there are different roles and purposes for the NCO corps and the officer corps, thus it stands with fake liberals who seek a large picture strategy vs those just interested in the tactics.
There is a good historical analogy for what is going on today and that is the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Constantinople resisted for over 200 years. During that time, it was torn by dissension from within. When it finally fell, the remaining defenders fought heroically. The males survivors were slaughtered, the women (especially the nuns) were raped in great public spectacles. However, at least they had the will to defend themselves, their civilization and their faith. We, by contrast, have fought them for five years, suffered upward to 3,000 battlefield deaths, and half our population is ready to throw in the towel. It hardly inspires confidence in the future.
I’m really torn about being optimistic or pessimistic…short term it’s pessimism, for sure. But long-term I feel more hopeful, although it’s unlikely I’ll be around to enjoy it. Nevertheless, I plant trees, so I’m thinking about my grandchildren in a lot of things……
I’ve thought that America, including those little old ladies, would wake up if a nuclear device were detonated in one of our cities….but I can already hear the response from the left. If only we weren’t messing around in the Middle East (or wherever the battlefield is at that time) then they’d leave us alone. They’re saying it about the Twin Towers right now - and we were NOT at war in any sense with Islamofascism at that time. In fact, we were at the end of a long period of appeasing it around the world. But, our media outlets simply won’t tell the American people the truth in this area.
The more I think about this, the more it becomes plain that the mass media bears an incredible burden of responsibility for the mess we are in, and the infinitely larger mess we’re headed for. They have a responsibility to tell the truth, and present the best analysis of events that can be generated, REGARDLESS of their opinion of the current leadership of this country. There is disaster waiting when they do anything else. This is the test they have failed, and the blood of thousands, or even (G-d forbid) millions of Americans will be on their hands if our defenses prove insufficient to prevent a major attack on our population centers.
Back in ancient times, you made someone give up by demonstrating that you have the power and the will to wipe out their homes if they resist. Here in modern times, you get people to give up by demonstrating that you are more morally pure, consistently pounding in negative and demoralizing stories and pictures into the subjugated, and also constantly being on the offensive in terms of psychological warfare, sound picture ideas emotions.
The Islamic Jihad does use the former, but it doesn’t work against the US. So they get plan B. Meaning, how half of America has been demoralized is the least effective of all possible options. The current plan of the US, to appease, bribe, and shell out “graft benefits called ‘incentives’” to Iran is not effective at all. So on an absolute scale, terroists win not because their plan is all that optimum, but because their enemies, us, don’t have a plan that works at all. Something compared to nothing, is more than nothing.
DQ,
I agree — I fear for America..
And until more of our beloved Republic get some old-fashioned “gumption” we are doomed.
And the Islamo-Fascists know us too well.
ExP (Jack)
What it would take, DQ, is to put her face to face, not once, but daily, with the evil. To have her try to smile and understand someone who subjugates her, diminishes her, devalues her, tortures her. I am sad to say that for comfy Europe and comfy clueless Americans like her it will take many many many more dead before she gets it. It will take a recognition that humans choose to do evil and that some cultures, Radical Islam and their apologists today, Nazis and Stalinists before, are evil. She will have to wake up to evil.
Well said. Lulu. Yes, too many Americans fear facing evil.
Earl, you do indict the MSM effectively. What shall we Americans do with them..which we have discussed before.
Part of an answer will have to be the demand from empowered groups of Americans that we have end to MSM lies. The blogopshere plays ‘pin the tail’ on a different
MSM lie..and more.. a day.
We must inform the media bluntly that the party is up. ‘WE WANT THE FACTS.’ ‘NO POLITICS.’ and best: “WE WANT ACTION.”
HARD QUESTIONING we must force: (examples)
1-Since 2003, name ONE positive action from the DEMOCRATS ON the War on Terror (One.) Are they supporting our way of life?
2–Since 2003–with American men and women serving in harm’s way– exhibit evidence that the MSM has BOLSTERED the American mission. (”None: we’re not taking sides” is no answer. There’s only ONE side for Americans. Choose!)
3–HOw many foolish attacks on the American government that served to undermine our national interest and unity, have been perpetuated by certain elements of American society?
HOLD them accountable: OUT THEM! 4– FINAL SCRUTINY: Have the ACTIONS OF THE MSM; the recusal of the Democratic Party; the damage from those who attack groundlessly OUR SYSTEM of government, culminated in a threat to American collective security?
What actions must we, the people, assert to protect ourselves?
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. I disagree that the MSM must take sides. I’d be quite happy if we had a neutral MSM for a change.
“if we had a neutral MSM for a change.”
Can one be neutral in the fight for America’s existence?
Neutral people are distrusted by both sides. Inevitably, without a sufficient power base, they will fall prey to one side or another in due time.
In the days of conquest rather than the time stasis of civilizations, there is only your enemy’s allies, your allies, and those who are available to become your allies.
Salamander had some good posts on this same subject for your perusal.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2006/09/late-summer-of-42.html
There’s also a longer post around the same subject, just below that one.
Hi Jg,
Actually, it’s the press’s job to be neutral. As it happens, any truly neutral presentation of America and the rest of the world will inevitably be highly favorable to America, just as any truly neutral presentation of the Middle Eastern situation would be highly favorable to Israel (at least in my humble opinion). But it is not up to the press to cheer on one side or the other. Take, for example, the reporting of the recent Lebanon situation. Israeli bombs that targeted legitimate targets which were intentionally using civilians as shields were reported as attacks on civilians. Hezbollah bombs that target civilians were given less coverage and less weight. Honest, objective, neutral reporting would have stressed that Hezbollah target civilians and hid behind them. Honest, objective, neutral reporting would have shown the displaced, wounded and dead Israeli civilians along side the displaced Lebanese civilians. Such reporting would have been quite sufficient to demonstrate to any observer who was morally superior and who America should support. Such reporting never happened.
Reporting is negative, not neutral in all sorts of areas. Not only is bad news trumpted, but good news is qualified. I read a headline the other day about how strong income growth has been in America with a subheading something like “but many American’s incomes barely keep up with inflation.” Actually, if the worst they can say is that the worst off are barely keeping up with inflation things must be pretty good, but that’s not the impression conveyed or intended. Yes, I’d definitely settle for a neutral, honest, objective press, even in the fight for America’s existence.
DQ, certainly your argument is a correct one and worthy. I agree.
My problem with the MSM is that they have abandoned Western basic tenets (values).
They no longer honor:
Truth, justice, protection of innocent life; sanctity of civilians; respect for family;
bedrock support for the institutions of civilisation–whether representative government, military, police, civility, culture, learning.
All of us struggle with trying to explain why the MSM have become a menace.
I don’t know, it’s a tricky issue. I’m inclined to think we are in a different sort of war than any we’ve ever been in before, and I think at that (this) point the media needs to remember where they live, and who in fact guarantees their right to be neutral; biased; or whatever. Who, in fact, guarantees their right to exist.
It seems to me that far too few of us have accepted the differentness of this war. This is not about defeating bad guys, or even trying to defeat and eliminate an “ism.”
This is about survival. This is the clash of cultures, or civilizations, whichever you will. It’s shaping up to be a take-no-prisoners, very deadly, end-game kind of business.
I arrive at this conclusion simply by reading and paying attention to what our enemy is saying. They are saying - and saying it repeatedly - that there isn’t room for both of us on the planet. Period. They are not in the least bit coy about it, and may in fact be accused of being admirably straightforward about their goals. (We are being beyond naive.) They are saying this is the big one, this is it, everything on the table, all or nothing. We aren’t saying that - they are.
They are saying - and demonstrating - that they will baulk at nothing. They will immolate themselves cheerfully, strap bombs to their wives, mothers, children, selves - whatever it takes.
They are stating very plainly, and demonstrating every day all over the planet, that they will not co-exist withg anyone - not Judaism, not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Shinto - not anybody.
Which would seem like a very broad conclusion - except that it’s the central point they keep making. I believe it. I believe it because they keep reiterating it.
And what is genuinely fascinating about it is that we don’t seem to believe them.
I think it’s part of our national character. We are a nation of people who go to the national parks every year and, not believing the signs the rangers put up, are very disappointed when the bear takes someone’s arm off.
I don’t understand why we don’t believe the signs, or why we don’t believe the imams, but I am quite sure in my own mind they are not kidding. Muhammad Sheikh Armoff - I believe you!
Which makes this war different. And I think makes the media’s response, and job, a little different than perhaps it’s ever been before. The stakes, whether or not the body politic believes it; whether or not Pinch Sulzberger believes it; are different.
And I have no time for the little old lady.
Hi JG & JJ,
Good comments. The other day I saw an ad for local news that emphasized “We’re on your side.” That’s the problem; the news shouldn’t be taking sides! I saw another news team promo that promised to give the viewers “perspective” along with their news. In other words, instead of just telling us the news, they’ll tell us what to think about the news. And they were bragging about it. Maybe they’re right. Maybe most Americans would rather not have to think for themselves.
I believe the extremists, too, but I care about the little old lady. She probably believes as she does in part because the message that the extremists are broadcasting loud and clear is not being conveyed by our press (or by any press she’s likely to come into contact with). She may not believe the threat because she is not even aware of it. Of course, she also may not believe because, as JJ suggests, optimist is a part of our national character. Either way, I sympathize with her and hope there is some way to reach her, and the millions like her, before it is too late.
Yes, I’d definitely settle for a neutral, honest, objective press, even in the fight for America’s existence.
If you are going to settle for that, precisely because you think you will have an advantage in a fair fight, then your enemy is duty bound to mess up your plans by corrupting the press.
There are two solutions as I see it, to get Don’s end goal. Either create a censorship office to neutralize enemy propaganda, thereby balancing out the end result to be more or less neutral. Or, combat enemy propaganda by segmenting the press into pro and anti sides, allowing the audience to see who is for who, and thus amalgamating information by having more of it in more diverse contents.
The second option makes use of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy, embodied in the First Ammendment. That being, people are informed when more information is available to them, even if a lot of that information is false. It is the opposite solution to censorship and active retaliation, but the end goal is the same as censorship. To reduce the news down to the facts, by removing contaminating influences that sway things one way or another.
Being neutral isn’t about choice. People have to fight if they want neutrality, and they have to win. Being neutral between two sides means you must fight both sides equally. You can get the press to fight Islamic Jihad as hard as they fight Bush and America, by being just like Islamic Jihad in terms of execution methods and hostage taking. I presume Don does not prefer press neutrality to such an extent, that he’d go for those methods, however. So there is only the two I listed above.