I'm glad you hung this up for viewing again. It is the most incisive and bracing short analysis of the situation that I know of. It is to be hoped that many bloggers will link to it, and if many Americans read and understand it then further dangerously fuzzy analysis can perhaps be reduced.

Particularly telling is your warning against "normalizing" the Terrorist War. Ever since the '50s, it seems, we as a society have increasingly responded to problems by institutionalizing them, creating panels of experts to issue reports, setting up self-perpetuating government agencies and imagining that failed policies must be pursued with greater vigor and larger budgets.

If this becomes our way of dealing with our mortal enemies among the Muslims, the consequences will be unthinkable.

We can sort of live with an endless so-called war on drugs fought at the wrong level -- street busts of mostly small-time dealers -- because the social cost of narcotics trafficking, while dire, is not a threat to the very foundations on which freedom rests.

But we will defeat ourselves, and risk civilization itself, if we convince ourselves that the Terrorist War is just one more "issue" that we can talk, think, spend and organize our way through. Our enemies know better, and they will exploit our acceptance of them as part of the status quo. I dread what we may have to experience before we learn to use our strength wisely … but use it.

Holy cow! Where den Beste does a great job of detailing the EXTERNAL challenge, this article defines the INTERNAL challenge we face, which is acknowledging the extremity of the danger.

In some ways, the George Lakoffs and Noam Chomskys possess tools the rest of us need to exercise and practice to a far greater degree. Language and symbolism are tactical and strategic weapons of war. On the other hand, simply recognizing that they are such is half the battle.

The somnambulance of our culture is precisely what the Liberal elite have been working so hard to achieve for the past decades. It is what allowed them to maintain their dominance of American politics for so many decades.

I have said elsewhere, that just a "few years ago, [LIBERAL]journalists were unable to untangle Clinton’s definition of the word “is.” More recently they’ve had difficulty grasping the idea that an “ally” is a country that supports goals to which they have agreed, NOT one that obstructs. In the last weeks before the Republican National Convention, they are confused over whether the function of journalism is to report news or suppress it."

Whether the liberal hypothesis has been promulgated sincerely or cynically, in the end it doesn't matter if Liberals cannot be persuaded to defend themselves from the onslaught of Islamic fundamentalism.

When are we going to wake up? Will it take Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and other cities in ashes, and millions, yes, MILLIONS dead before we do what we must? I've read all the writers and listened to the talking heads and all I can glean is that we are waiting for the inevitable to occur before we act because the left wing in this country weakens us at every turn by forcing us to fight with one hand behind our back just as in Viet Nam. Why can't we remember the lesson of William T. Sherman and George S. Patton that when you fight a war, fight the war to win and preserve your civilization. Political correctness be damned. National survival is what counts.

Though I disagree with some of your base assumptions, your article is coherent and well thought-out. Furthermore, your article highlights exactly why I, and perhaps many other political independents, hate George Bush-- he is dishonest and incompetent. Suppose that your article accurately captures the nature of the war, and the US' military intentions-- it certainly makes more sense than the confusing drivel coming from the administration. If Bush would just stop dissembling about the nature of the war and the scope of action needed then he might open himself up to the possibility of re-gaining some respect from those of us capable of critical thought. If he furthermore showed the leadership and resolve necessary to implement his clearly stated objectives, then he might actually recover some of his squandered political capital. However, as things stand now, Bush is the one pushing the "war on terrorism" and it's interminable process, rather than saying and doing what is necessary for a decisive victory.

This is the most important, best-defined essay I have read about our current status since 9/11 happened. I had pieced together many of the individual elements or components included in this writing, but this is the summary description that brings it all into wide-screen clarity. This MUST be passed on to friends, colleagues and main-stream Americans through email links and the like. For the record, I wouldn't have found this without Google's new Blog Search tool that they introduced yesterday. (No, I don't work for Google!) God bless you.

Does it matter in the long run whether President Bush utters platitudes designed to assure "allies" that he knows we cannot trust but that he can use in the short run, if all the while he is pursuing a strategy that will disassemble the ideology that drives our enemies?

For instance he breaks bread with terrorists from CAIR but on the other hand introduces freedom into the midst of the Middle East. Freedom will ultimately dissolve the fantasy ideology of Islam.

Pierre

Superb analysis. Cogent and irrefutable, it needs to be read by anyone who has a brain. I assume blogging this will have your approval? Acknowledged, of course!

Freedom as described in this essay is secular. Secular has no soul. A large part of the population feels this country is not worth fighting for. This attitude comes directly from freedom as described. The backbone of our nation has been Christianity, that religion has lost its way and no longer exist. This failure of the Western culture and the acceptance of the lie will lead to our destruction. As someone much wiser than I said, "Evil has many doors, the Lie is the key to them all".

I also linked to this essay: it is very well done and deserves to be widely read and understood.

http://spartacus.blogs.com/spartacus/2006/01/the_fire_next_t.html

Thank you Spartacus

Posting for Andy, who is caught by the spam filter:
====
For individuals living within western civilization, it comes down to "What
part of "we are going to kill you" don't you understand?".

About twenty percent of Americans don't understand, and double that number
that consciously refuse to understand out of BDS or mere political
contrariness.

The guy that blows up your family won't care how many times you saw
Faranheit 9/11 or how much money you gave to the DNC.

At least the muslims embrace "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Can't think of any effective, pragmatic strategy the western left has
embraced toward a higher ideal these last forty years. None.

They keep on bitching about evil right wingers. All well and good for
fundraising, I guess, but even Soros is going to get tired of the game
sooner or later.

Thanks,

Andy

I had read "The sword and the prophet" by Serge Trifkovic within a few weeks after 9/11. It told me all that was sufficient and necessary to know about the genesis of Islam, which is as you called it, the youngest of the monotheistic religions, at least by most accountings. I also fear that secularism has risen to such heights in the west, that the call to arms in protection of the homeland just might go unheeded, and even be reviled, as it so often is, presently.

All Things Beautiful TrackBack Religious Dogma Has No Place In A Secular Society

I very much agree with your article. I however disagree with the idea that another attack will bring our country togather.
I do not like to be pessimistic but I believe that another attack will push us into submission to Islam. The reason I say this is the number of people I am associated with daily that have no committment or stomach for war.
If we had this same committment in WW1 or WW2 think of how different our world would be today.
Think of what we have taught the world about our country since 1945... Korea, we withdrew.. Viet Nam, we withdrew.. bombings at Marine Barracks in Lebonon, we withdrew.. the Cole, no action, over and over in the last 50 years we or an ally have been attacked and we've reacted only to withdraw before the job is finished, or worse, done nothing.
We have, by our actions, shown the enemies of our country that we no longer have the will to survive as a free nation.
As a friend once told me, "we talk the talk but can no longer walk the walk".

Are you ever going to finish part three of The Sacrifice and the Reckoning? I am looking forward to Operation Stick... I remember you said that thinking about such horror and devastation would take time and require quite a lot from you, but here we are in January 2007 and reality might just beat you to it.

I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/01/re-first-terrorist-war.html

"Paging General Curtis LeMay and General William Sherman. Paging General LeMay and General Sherman. Please pick up the red courtesy phone."