America in the Balance

WAKE UP AMERICA II

by

Ken Eliasberg

As I indicated last week (and in several other preceding columns), we are at war. Some have chosen to define it in more precise terms, i.e.

WWIII (Newt Gingrich) or WWIV (Norman Podhoretz; he considers the cold war as WWIII). In this regard, I strongly recommend Podhoretz’s article in the September, 2006 issue of Commentary magazine, entitled Is the Bush Doctrine Dead? The article can also be found in the August 23^rd online edition of Opinion Journal; it elaborates on his thinking and makes for interesting, if not compelling, reading. Also, see Barbara Lerner’s column, We’re Losing World War IV—How to get back to the road to victory, in the August 4^th edition of National Review Online. The point of all this is not that we give the event a number, or agree on what that number might be if we decide to give it one, or define it at all; the point is simply this -WE ARE AT WAR!!! The right recognizes this reality, and is doing the best they can to respond to it. Radical Islam has confirmed it on many occasions (not just by their actions, but by their clear expressions to that effect). Meanwhile, the left is either (1) denying its existence, (2) trivializing its significance, or (3) criticizing the manner in which it is being conducted (or all 3 at the same time - consistency is of no concern to the left; their regaining power—at any price—is their only concern).

Lest you think I exaggerate re the seriousness of the situation or that my perspective is unique, I’d like to share with you the thinking of some journalists who I respect and whose writing on this subject is well worth scrutinizing.

In putting the current situation in some sort of meaningful historical perspective, our cause is aided considerably by a bevy of brilliant pundits who strive (apparently, with only limited success) to illuminate the darkness through which many of us—particularly the mainstream media and various members of the academy - seem to be sleepwalking our way toward the edge of a very steep cliff. As you know, I have a number of favorites, but I am particularly fond of a group of scholars at the Hoover Institute, one of whom is Thomas Sowell, who had this to say in his online column for Townhall.com, dated August 22^nd and entitled Point of no return?

“It is hard to think of a time when a nation—and a whole civilization—has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel - - and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”

Succinct and to the point (and right on the money).

Picking up on this theme, Michael Ledeen in a July 31^st column for National Review online, entitled The Thirties All Over Again? Makes these observations:

“Certainly there is lots of bad news, most of which confirms what we already knew: The Western world hates Israel; the taboo on anti-Semitism is off; the Western world has been P.C.’ed to the edge of death; there is no stomach for fighting the war against Islamic fascism.

Sounds like the Thirties to me.

* * * * * *

The scary thing about our current jam is that 9/11 was supposed to have been the wakeup call, but we are again asleep. For this I blame our leaders—both the administration and the Dems. The administration is constitutionally unable to explain itself [the administration has gone a long way to correct this problem since this column was published], and the Dems have no qualms about losing all present battles so long as they can elect their candidates and bring down this president.”

Ledeen goes on to make the very valid point that we refuse to recognize and appropriately deal with the real enemies, Iran and Syria. When you are dealing with a venomous snake you would be well advised to cut off its head rather than continue to lop off a thousand tails.

Hal Lindsey, in his July 7, 2006 column for WorldNetDaily, entitled Armageddon looms large, after summarizing the events leading up to WWII, makes this observation:

“History teaches us that only the aggressors learn from history. The appeasers never learn from it. But the stakes today are far more dangerous than before. Now Armageddon looms large before us.”

Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University, in a column entitle Will the West defend itself? For Townhall.com, August 23^rd, in response to the question of whether we have the will to prevail, observed:

“Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity [to destroy them], but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we’ll never use it. Today’s Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.

* * * * * * *

I’m not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I’m sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit.”

I could go on - and on - quoting respected authorities, but I’m sure you get the point. So let me leave this collateral support phase of my argument by citing you to some of these pundits, see Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) , The Brink of Madness—A familiar place, at National Review online on August 4^th ; VDH, Hope Amid Despair—A reluctant world begins to confront reality, at National Review Online, August 18^th; VDH, Worry about the West—not Israel, Jewish World Review online, August 10^th;VDH, The Waiting Game—Do we really need futher convincing of the threat we face?, National Review online, September 1^st; David Pryce Jones, Appeasement Back in Style, National Review online, August 6^th; Thomas Sowell, Then and now, Jewish World Review online. July 25^th; Melanie Phillips, Suicide of the West—Denial is no longer a river in Egypt but a British pathology, at National Reviw online, Augst 18^th; Michael Tanji, Five Years Later The anniversary of 9/11 is around the corner and in many ways, America still isn’t acting like it’s at war, the weekly Standard online, September 6^th; and Tony Blankley, World public unconvinced of Islamic threat, Washington Times National Weekly Edition, July 31^st.This should keep you busy for awhile, but let me assure you, there’s plenty more to the same effect.

Make no mistake about it, we are looking into the face of evil, and if we flinch, it could well be the end of Western Civilization. But let’s assume that I’m wrong, and peace breaks out all over - nothing would please me more, and I’d be delighted to not only confess the error of my ways (something that a liberal would never do), but to join all the lefties in a big kumbiya party. However, if I’m right, then we’d best be about the business of preparing for a long struggle with Radical Islam, a brutal, backward, and barbarian force that seems bent on returning the world to the dark ages, a place that it has never left.

In a very interesting piece by Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University and the pre-eminent Western scholar on Islam, in the current issue of Imprimus, Hillsdale Colleges’ monthly publication, the author makes the following observation (in a scholarly article that is both sympathetic to, and understanding of, Islam):

“The outlook at the moment is, I would say, very mixed. I think that the cause of developing free institutions—along their lines, not ours—is possible. One can see signs of its beginning in some countries. At the same time, the forces working against it are very powerful and well entrenched. And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.

I think that the effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.”

I don’t think he could have stated either the case or the stakes more clearly.

(As an aside, Professor Lewis, a history professor who is a “real” scholar, is speaking at Claremont-McKenna’s Athteneam on November at 7PM; I strongly recommend attending if you can make it—he is someone who knows what he is talking about and doesn’t let politics come between him and scholarship)