Thursday, June 30, 2005

The Matador in the Mirror

One of the stupidest "smart" tales of all time is FailSafe.

For those of you who haven't read the book, seen the Henry Fonda movie, or the George Clooney remake, an eeeeevil military conspiracy decides to force the USA to knock out the USSR by nuking Moscow. The brave, sensitive American President, desiring only to avoid a Third World War, demonstrates America's commitment to peace by ordering the US Air Force to nuke New York City.

In the fairy tale, this works just fine.

The bulk of the American public rejected the advice of literary and cinema critics and avoided this insanity, but it's captured the imagination of the American Left for over fifty years. When Clooney sought to make a 2000 remake for cable he was able to draw an A-list cast for the project (which also tanked.)

I'm reminded of this when I hear the hissy fit Democrats and the press threw over Bush's speech on Iraq.

Some are angry because they think anybody who didn't participate on the actual 9/11 attack is not a legitimate target of the war on terror. Some are angry because they imagine there's an army of foriegners who'll fight our battles for us for the proper concessions.

Most are angry because Bush wants to fight, and wants to crush our enemies, and won't win a peace by demonstrating how vulnerable and harmless we can be.

Seeking security is arrogant and provocative. This is the leftist attitude recently articulated by Nicholas Ouroussoff in the "Appraisal: Fear in a soaring tower" in the New York Times:
What the tower evokes, by comparison, are ancient obelisks, blown up to a preposterous scale and clad in heavy sheaths of reinforced glass - an ideal symbol for an empire enthralled with its own power, and unaware that it is fading.

...Absurdly, if the Freedom Tower were reduced by a dozen or so stories and renamed, it would probably no longer be considered such a prime target. Fortifying it, in a sense, is an act of deflection. It announces to terrorists: Don't attack here - we're ready for you. Go next door.
Oh you pathetic tough guys! Your effective security measures just link you to all the effective security measures of the past. You just make it tougher for everybody else. Puh-lease!

Ouroussoff wails the loss of the "tension" present in the old design. I guess waiting for a truck bomb to take out thirty floors does give a sort of tension, but probably nobody, including Ouroussoff, really wants to pay the price of that vulnerability.

This is the sort of mentality that gripes about terrorists being recruited by the War on Terror. If only we were puny punk bitches, then Wahabist ghazis would become dentists instead of suicide bombers.

When in reality, having seen a bunch of goatherders from beyond the boondocks kill 2800 people in New York City, serious Americans have a much lower threshhold for foriegners holding "Death to America" summer camps. SoCal Pundit has a nice roundup of instances where Saddam encouraged terrorists and instances where leaders of both parties took notice and sounded off against him for it.

We could react to that and disarm and beg for mercy...

Until the Democrats prefer "Patton" to "Failsafe", they're not going to win a wartime election.

1 comment:

Peter Sean Bradley said...

Nice post.

With respect to national security, one does get the sense from listening to the left that they have absolutely inculcated the mindset of a New York City mugging victim - it's inevitable, it's probably the victim's fault and if no one resists no one gets hurt.

The whole "we're sorry" movement - where lefties "apologized" for the election of George Bush - is part of this. These lefties were trying to put themselves in a position where they could say - to someone - look don't mess with us, we didn't provoke you, it's those other guys, go get them.

Well as a member of the same commonwealth, I kind of resent those of my fellow citizens who falsely believe that they can buy their security at my expense.