Psychology of the West

Two brilliant articles have been published by two piercing journalists. Cal Thomas has penned a piece at RealClearPolitics discussing the naiive state of mind a large proportion of the West have with regards to the WIF. An excerpt:

And now for the definition-impaired, the meaning of the word "naive": "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment."

He illustrates naivete in the example set by Ed Rendell, General Chair of the DNC. Asked about his strategy for Iraq if he were president, came his reply:

Rendell was asked what he would do about Iraq if he were president. He said he is not running, but if he were and he won, on the day after his inauguration, "I would go to Iraq and ask to be on TV throughout the Middle East and I'd say, 'We came here with the best of intentions and wanted to create freedom and democracy for all and 3,000 Americans have died. It is clear to me we have become the main problem. I'm going to ask the international community to develop a peacekeeping force and reduce our presence. We're going to help you build houses, provide aid and economic opportunity for your people.'"

Thomas quips that:

That isn't a peace plan; it's a plan for surrender. Does he seriously believe such a retreat would not be seen as surrender and weakness, playing into the hands of jihadists, who would be emboldened to keep on fighting until they dominated all of Europe and then come after America?

I point out that jihadists, in the past, HAVE been emboldened by the inadequate (or totally absent) responses of the US to events such as:

1. 1979: Iranian Hostage Crisis planned and carried out by Shiite revolutionaries
2. 1983: Beirut Barracks Bombing planned and carried out by unknown Shiite Islamofascists
3. 1993: World Trade Centre bombing planned and carried out by Ramzi Yousef
4. 1996: Khobar Towers bombing planned and carried out by al Qaeda
5. 2000: Bombing of USS Cole as it was docked in a Yemeni port carried out by al Qaeda

So Thomas also has history on his side.

Meanwhile Thomas Sowell, has also penned a piece at RealClearPolitics discussing suicidialism of certain sections of the ruling elite when it comes to the prosecution of the WIF:

No amount of security precautions [as proposed by the Democrats and some Republicans] can protect us from all the thousands of ways in which terrorists can strike at times and places of their own choosing -- and eventually strike with nuclear weapons. Our only hope is to get advance information from those we capture as to where other terrorists are and how they operate.

Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal dangers.

Compare that will John Kerry's "Immoral" speech.

H/T: Hugh Hewitt for inspiring some of this.

Psychology of the West

Two brilliant articles have been published by two piercing journalists. Cal Thomas has penned a piece at RealClearPolitics discussing the naiive state of mind a large proportion of the West have with regards to the WIF. An excerpt:

And now for the definition-impaired, the meaning of the word "naive": "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment."

He illustrates naivete in the example set by Ed Rendell, General Chair of the DNC. Asked about his strategy for Iraq if he were president, came his reply:

Rendell was asked what he would do about Iraq if he were president. He said he is not running, but if he were and he won, on the day after his inauguration, "I would go to Iraq and ask to be on TV throughout the Middle East and I'd say, 'We came here with the best of intentions and wanted to create freedom and democracy for all and 3,000 Americans have died. It is clear to me we have become the main problem. I'm going to ask the international community to develop a peacekeeping force and reduce our presence. We're going to help you build houses, provide aid and economic opportunity for your people.'"

Thomas quips that:

That isn't a peace plan; it's a plan for surrender. Does he seriously believe such a retreat would not be seen as surrender and weakness, playing into the hands of jihadists, who would be emboldened to keep on fighting until they dominated all of Europe and then come after America?

I point out that jihadists, in the past, HAVE been emboldened by the inadequate (or totally absent) responses of the US to events such as:

1. 1979: Iranian Hostage Crisis planned and carried out by Shiite revolutionaries
2. 1983: Beirut Barracks Bombing planned and carried out by unknown Shiite Islamofascists
3. 1993: World Trade Centre bombing planned and carried out by Ramzi Yousef
4. 1996: Khobar Towers bombing planned and carried out by al Qaeda
5. 2000: Bombing of USS Cole as it was docked in a Yemeni port carried out by al Qaeda

So Thomas also has history on his side.

Meanwhile Thomas Sowell, has also penned a piece at RealClearPolitics discussing suicidialism of certain sections of the ruling elite when it comes to the prosecution of the WIF:

No amount of security precautions [as proposed by the Democrats and some Republicans] can protect us from all the thousands of ways in which terrorists can strike at times and places of their own choosing -- and eventually strike with nuclear weapons. Our only hope is to get advance information from those we capture as to where other terrorists are and how they operate.

Squeamishness about how this is done is not a sign of higher morality but of irresponsibility in the face of mortal dangers.

Compare that will John Kerry's "Immoral" speech.

H/T: Hugh Hewitt for inspiring some of this.