War On Terror Update

I've found several recent stories that talk about the War on Terror. First, we have another story of capitulation to Muslims. Many schools in certain areas of England are refusing to put up posters drawing attention to forced marriage (it depicts a man's and woman's wrist bound together with chains). They fear repercussions from...ahem...families...who might feel these posters are too 'hard-hitting'. This is precisely the problem - too many people are so unwilling to even think about the problem; they certainly won't do anything about it. If this continues, radical Islam will win because the opposition (i.e. those who fight for freedom) isn't even on the playing field. It's happening all over the world.

Right Truth also brings us a very illuminating article about the man in Texas who allegedly 'honor' killed his two teenage daughters because they were dating non-Muslims. I've blogged about this tragedy before, but this article is valuable in helping Americans understand the mindset of Muslims. In it, the son of the murderer (the brother of the victims) claims that his father was completely in the right, and the fault of the murders lay with the boyfriends. If you don't understand how this boy could think such an insane thing, you must, must, MUST read this article. Once you understand this mentality, you start to understand the futility of thinking you can negotiate or talk them out of their plans. Until you get it, you'll never understand the reality that the only way to combat this mindset is to DEFEAT it with military strength and clarity of purpose.

Speaking of the mindset of radical Muslims, here are a couple more examples of how they think. Remember those eight Israeli seminary students who were recently gunned down by a Palestinian terrorist? That 'martyr' is now being glorified by other Muslims on Facebook. And, if you want to talk about real, actual torture, how about this story where the severed fingers of five Western hostages were delivered to the government of Iraq? I can't comprehend the sheer audacity -- or is it mind-boggling stupidity? -- of Democrats and liberals who equate intense interrogation techniques (yes, even the dreaded waterboarding) that are merely unpleasant to the actual torture of violently destroying the bodies of hostages. Our side doesn't torture, theirs does. If you can't see that, you need to get your eyes checked.

Fortunately, Americans are starting to figure some of these things out despite the MSM's best efforts to deny the truth. Politico.com reports on a recent poll showing the highest level of support for the war in Iraq since 2006, and an optimistic outlook that we will win the war. The truth will win out every time...if it gets shared with enough people. Finally, Clifford May writes a great piece at NRO about how there truly are two Americas this election cycle: one which is fighting a global war, and one that is not. Some very revealing excerpts:

Al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups live in a shadow world where they plot to kill you and me.

If we expect our intelligence professionals to prevent them from succeeding, we must give them the tools required to get the job done. But in recent days, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have not been providing those tools. They've been taking them away.

One way to gather useful intelligence on terrorism is by interrogating captured terrorists. Torture is illegal — in all cases without exception. But short of torture are a variety of interrogation techniques that seek to elicit information by inflicting stress and duress; by rewarding cooperation and punishing defiance. Such techniques are aggressive and coercive, to be sure, but they do not necessarily "shock the conscience" — the commonly agreed definition of torture.

Last week, President Bush was presented with a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from utilizing such methods even in cases involving unlawful combatants believed to have knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks. Instead, the bill would have restricted the CIA to the mild interrogation methods authorized for soldiers in the U.S. Army Field Manual — a document terrorists can access, read, and utilize for training purposes.

Bush promptly vetoed the bill, saying it would outlaw techniques that have been used in the past to "prevent a number of attacks." Among them: assaults against a Marine camp in Djibouti and a U.S. consulate in Pakistan, and plots to fly passenger airplanes into buildings in Los Angeles and London.

An attempt this week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to overturn the president's veto failed. But Pelosi has continued to block House members from voting on an additional measure — a compromise bill, passed by a bipartisan 68 to 29 majority in the Senate — to restore to American intelligence agencies the authority they formerly had to monitor foreign terrorist suspects abroad without first demonstrating "probable cause" to a judge — a difficult standard to meet since many of those planning terrorism have not yet committed any crime.

It's hard to avoid this conclusion: We are living in what John Edwards might call two Americas. In one are those who realize we are fighting a war, and that we'd better fight hard and well because our enemy is dangerous. In the other are those who think the "war" against militant Islamism is a figment of the neo-conservative imagination — hardly worth mentioning.

That's no exaggeration. Check out the presidential candidates' websites. On John McCain's, under "Issues," you'll see "National Security," with a subheading on "Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics," and prominent mention of "the global war on terrorism" and "threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea."

Hillary Clinton's website, by contrast, lists 14 issues. Terrorism, national security, the war against Islamist terrorists, and even foreign policy are conspicuously absent. Instead there is "Restoring America's Standing in the World."

Barack Obama's website shows 25 issues — but, again, national security and militant Islamism do not make the cut. Instead, in a section on "Foreign Policy," he promises to close the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo (he does not say where the terrorists now housed there would go), and "lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease."

Obama does assert that he will "finish the fight against al-Qaeda." He does not specify what weapons he will use to get that job done. Apparently, however, he doesn't believe a robust intelligence-gathering capability need be among them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the fight against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. Will we as a nation shake ourselves from our indulgent excesses long enough to defend ourselves and once again put down an evil tyrannical regime bent on dominating and oppressing the entire world -- as we did in WWII -- or will we blind ourselves to this critical struggle so long that we cannot stop it at all? Only one side of our political leadership shows any sign of preparedness for battle: the Republicans. For all his obvious problems, McCain is so much better prepared than his Dem counterparts to lead this struggle that it's a no-brainer. The Democrat party leadership across the board is hopelessly ignorant, willfully blind, and eminently unqualified to lead our nation at this point in history.

There's my two cents.