Newswires are awash in panic stories since President Obama killed Osama bin Laden with the assistance of our Navy SEALs, more awash than before he killed OBL.
As Drudge reported on Monday from various sources:
New York’s Senator Chuckie Schumer, who is always calling for something as long as there’s a photo op possible, is “calling for the creation of an Amtrak no ride list. That would take the secure flight program and apply it to Amtrak trains.” (CBS.com) Subways, the LIRR, Metro North are presumably safe enough for Chuckie.
“Two terrifying rail security breaches occurred within hours of each other in [New York] city yesterday–including one at the World Trade Center, where a man slipped into the PATH tunnel and walked all the way to Jersey before saying he had left a bomb in the tunnel.” (New York Post)
Bronx streets were blocked off twice last weekend while the NYPD investigated a parked SUV and another potential ”bomb threat.” (Daily News)
Lest the reader think threats to America are confined to the mean seats on Amtrack and the meaner streets of NYC, three other incidents were reported including “a threatening note” left behind in a Detroit bathroom, diverted three separate aircraft, a Dallas train station was evacuated after a man asked for help carrying parcels, four people were arrested for videotaping a TSA pat-down line in Denver, and TSA agents tried to sniff out explosives in a baby’s diaper at Kansas City International.
Anyone else get the feeling we’re overdoing security? Or, are we? May God forbid we return to the pre-9/11 lax security days but are we over-securing our country and our people and making America an intolerable place in which to live, work, and travel?
More importantly, how long does the government expect us to live, work, and travel under these conditions? If it’s for the duration as they used to say during World War Two, if so, how long is the duration? For as long as Islam threatens and attacks us? If that’s the case, our children, grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren may have to adapt to a system which is evolving into something little different than the old U.S.S.R. and Hitler’s brownshirts imposed on their citizenry.
As burdensome and depressing as that scenario is, there’s a more burdensome and depressing alternative, an alternative which involves America finally announcing to bloodthirsty terrorists of every stripe that we have had enough. In conjunction with our Western allies who would most probably not concur, we further announce we plan to win that war which our current president pretends does not exist, the worldwide War on Terrorism.
The costs of winning would be stupendous. The costs of losing could be stupefying.
This is where the alternative becomes most burdensome and depressing on Americans.
If we acknowledge the existence, the omnipresence of that war, we should also acknowledge the wisdom of one of America’s greatest generals, General Douglas MacArthur. Among many other pearl’s of wartime wisdom, MacArthur said,
“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” We did not enter this war of our own volition but the fact of its existence is real and palpable and, simply put, if we don’t win it, as sure as there is evil in the world, we will lose it.
On the one hand, it seems incomprehensible that the most powerful nation on the planet, the world’s only superpower left standing, could lose to what some consider a ragtag, pajamas-clad army of lunatics.
On the other hand, 9/11 was incomprehensible to any rational being on September 10th, 2001. Those lunatics are committed, dedicated with every fiber of their beings to not only defeating the enemy it has chosen but to destroying what they consider not merely another enemy but a Great Satan, to wreak destruction on a centuries-old foe, and to avenge centuries-old grievances.
It would be at our great peril to dismiss the threat of Islam. It would be gravely foolhardy to believe we can indefinitely forestall future attacks which could dwarf the horrors of a decade ago by intrusive airport pat-downs and comparable “security measures” which are essentially sops intended to falsely reassure Americans.
Worse, we are performing those intrusions even as our borders are sickeningly porous and open to foreign invaders and our cities and transportation systems, our ports, and airliners are as vulnerable to attack as they ever were. We’re between a rock and a very hard place that promises to grow even harder and more dangerous in years to come.
America’s stark choice is to continue down an extremely rocky road or, as Hamlet said, “to take arms against a sea of troubles. And by opposing end them.”
I don’t offer my book, An Immodest Proposal for Ending and Winning the War on Terrorism, as the best proposal, the only plan, or even a workable solution for satisfactorily concluding a war that has been in progress for decades. It’s also not a pretty proposal. I do offer it as an alternative to a long-standing national policy of inertia, of pretense, and of playing a deadly game of chicken with Islam. (See reviews on Amzon.com at http://amzn.to/mOcezp.)
Our president has already, incredibly, theorized with Fareed Zakaria that America could withstand a nuclear attack or two and resiliently “bounce back.” As debatable as that theory may be, does he also believe we could also survive a few massive biological and bacteriological assaults as well?