Monday, September 11, 2006
The Continuing Threat
Recently, a new tension seems to be growing over whether we have been successful in our war against terror. In this respect, I am speaking not of the tension between pro- and anti-war partisans, but rather within the proactive group (whether this is a pro-Iraq group is debatable) itself.
What seems like a minority of voices have begun speaking out claiming that our war is being won because we have prevented attacks within the United States. This group appears to have grown substantially and vocally within the past month or so following the foiled British plan to attack cross-Atlantic flights. It is typified by the following today in the NY Post:
On the other side of this "debate" are statements such as Rudy Giuliani's article today in USA Today. Stoking the latent fear that remains from September 11, the Giuliani group claims that "[w]e are safer, but not safe enough" but points out that "[t]he attacks have continued unceasingly since 9/11 and include those on Bali, Indonesia; Madrid; Beslan, Russia; London." Rarely, and only mutedly, does this group discuss any successes in the war.
More and more, I have come to view this war on terror not as Mr. (too soon to say "President"?) Giuliani appears to see it--as a battle we appear to be losing and certainly not winning--but as those more inclined to a positive view. We are winning. We have not won this war but we are certainly winning. We have prevented attacks in the United States. We have the terrorists on the run. And it seems that so long as we continue to prosecute the war as we have, we should continue to see successes.
I'm not sure how long this feeling of mine will last but, for now at least, it's nice to feel good about something going on.
What seems like a minority of voices have begun speaking out claiming that our war is being won because we have prevented attacks within the United States. This group appears to have grown substantially and vocally within the past month or so following the foiled British plan to attack cross-Atlantic flights. It is typified by the following today in the NY Post:
Islamist fanatics have not been able to stage a single additional attack on our homeland. For all its growing pains, our homeland-security effort worked. In this long war with religion-poisoned madmen, the most important proof of success is what doesn't happen - and we haven't been struck again. Wail as loudly as they can, the president's critics can't change that self-evident truth.
On the other side of this "debate" are statements such as Rudy Giuliani's article today in USA Today. Stoking the latent fear that remains from September 11, the Giuliani group claims that "[w]e are safer, but not safe enough" but points out that "[t]he attacks have continued unceasingly since 9/11 and include those on Bali, Indonesia; Madrid; Beslan, Russia; London." Rarely, and only mutedly, does this group discuss any successes in the war.
More and more, I have come to view this war on terror not as Mr. (too soon to say "President"?) Giuliani appears to see it--as a battle we appear to be losing and certainly not winning--but as those more inclined to a positive view. We are winning. We have not won this war but we are certainly winning. We have prevented attacks in the United States. We have the terrorists on the run. And it seems that so long as we continue to prosecute the war as we have, we should continue to see successes.
I'm not sure how long this feeling of mine will last but, for now at least, it's nice to feel good about something going on.
Comments:
<< Home
I would say a failed attack indicates that we are winning. I'm not doubting for an instant that these people wish to do us harm. It's the fact that we're stopping them that I find encouraging.
Post a Comment
<< Home
