Terrorism is costly for all of us, in lots of different ways.

I'm willing to bet that nearly every "high-profile site" has substantial costs, just as the Sears Tower does.

The enemy is not only smart. The enemy is incredibly persistent. Even leftwing Newsweek Magazine said so in the August 21/28 edition:

"Al Qaeda and the Islamic jihadists spawned by radical Islam are nothing if not determined and patient. Struggles against the infidel are never-ending...."

Now, does the West have the same persistence to preserve our civilization?

Great article, Seth. I don't think most people have what it takes to piece together the holistic result of 9-11 and aftermath attempts to attack us. In many ways the terrorists won a great victory because we modified our behavior based upon their actions. We continue to do so based upon the actions of their poodle CAIR.

As a freedom loving and liberty embracing society we have vulnerabilities. Our legal system is predicated upon honety and forthrightness. Deception and twisted arguments easily pervade our system and can quite effectively be used against us - as Islamofascism is actually doing.

I'm afraid until we are completely awakened we will for the most part continue to coast along in our post 9-11 daze with our minds focused on 9-10. When we are finally awakened, I fear our biggest battle will be to convince our Useful Idiot crowd that we can no longer accept modifying our behavior, rather we must modify (or eliminate) Islam.

Great post, very thought prevoking.

Seth, I tried to send a TrackBack ping, but HaloScan wouldn't recognize the URL. At any rate, I've linked to this article over at 'Old Soldier.'

AOW --

In the comment thread on your "Islamic Fascists" post, in reply to a comment by Old Soldier, Cubed linked to his post featuring Col. Peters' directions on how to win this war against Islamofascism, and I think Peters is dead right.

We need to be perpetually advancing and utterly merciless.

As he pointed out, decisive victory is ultimately moral victory in the eyes of the world, whereas lack of victory, no matter how noble the cause, is disgrace.

Instead of worrying about feel-good world opinion, we need to prosecute this war tenaciously, beginning with cutting off the enemy's propaganda venues, prosecuting media outlets that publish classified military and intelligence information and providing those convicted with prison terms for treason, and the Bush Administration needs to start talking more, explaining as graphically as possible the reality of the danger posed by Islam to free societies.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, and our leaders are going to continue being PC within and playing by U.N. rules without, and maybe, just maybe after some group of terrorists manages to slip past our security measures and hit us with another sucker punch along the lines of 9/ 11, our politicians will grow back the spines they temporarily developed on 9/ 12/ 01.

Old Soldier, Thanks --

Earning my living as I do in the Protection Industry, I'm constantly aware of new security measures adopted by firms and govt agencies. At the annual ASIS Seminars and Exhibits, which is the largest security convention in the world, I'll spend most of my time between seminars, workshops and lectures on the exhibit floor, looking over new products and getting contact information from sales reps and small company owners. There's some fascinating technology out there, terrorism has necessitated a whole new marketplace in the security business, for everything from structural materials to access control and surveillance technology. Companies spend tons of money on security now, in many cases it has ceased to be simply "necessary overhead" for insurance purposes, and corporate security departments are becoming increasingly more involved in decision making and increasingly better budgeted within their respective organizations.

As I said in my response to AOW's comment, I firmly believe it's going to take another large tragedy to jump us back to the resolve of 9/ 12.

Old Soldier, thanks for linking.

There was a problem at Mu.nu with spambots slamming us with trackbacks, and I believe they're disabled temporarily.

"In short, we're not the French" ROTFLMAO.
Thank God we're not, but we have a cancer among us...

Excellent! I'm glad Old Soldier linked to this.

We often speak of "going on with our daily lives and not living in fear" as the best way to show the terrorists that they have not won. But the reality is, they have changed our way of life, and we have no choice but to do so, in order to protect ourselves from the reality of terrorism.

New must be reported; but everytime a terrorist act is broadcast, it is another victory for the terrorist. Because it means getting their message of violence out into the public consciousness. I sometimes wonder what if we never allowed any terrorist activity any airtime at all. Would it continue? After all, part of the motivation is to garner as much media attention as possible. They want the spotlight; they want the media to be complicit in their propaganda of terror.

If we only showed more resolve and a harder stance, it would minimize the impact terrorists see that they have on us. But when we broadcast our grief, our fears, our internal political bickering and dissention, they know that terrorism is effective..and that it works.

Michael --

We do have a preponderance of liberal "intellectuals" who believe that anything connected with France is the epitome of sophistication and wisdom, but who fall short of doing us the favor of moving there. :-)

Wordsmith --

Welcome, and thank you.

The option of not reporting a terrorist incident would be good in that it would not only deprive the terrorists of the spotlight they crave, but it would also downplay, to them, the importance of the act, a nice, strong dose of humiliation.

On the other side of the coin, it is just as important that the people know the danger we face from terrorism, and keeping the public informed thus will help avoid the complacency CAIR and the Useful Idiot contingent depend on to downplay Islam's threat.

The former would require some serious reform in the mainstream media, who delight in "exposing" everything they can, including military secrets, if they feel that what they're doing is contrary to Bush strategies for fighting the war against the terrorists.

The bickering and so forth, which originates mostly on the left, not only lets them know they're winning, it also encourages them to attack harder and more in hopes of widening the divide still further, destroying the public's confidence in the administration's ability to protect them and electing more Democrats to leadership positions: Could you imagine having John Kerry in the White House and a Democrat majority on the Hill while we're fighting Taliban holdouts and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and al Qaeda + other terrorist elements in Iraq, and our country is a Muslim terrorist target?

Osama and friends would love it!

Yawn.

Clinton was president last century.

But if you want to take a stroll down memory lane don't forget Rummy & RR and their support for both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

Neither would be have been quite so potent without the great communicator.

Hi, Arthur --

Different era, different alliances. It's called global politics and it's been happening for many centuries.

One doesn't always know that ones ally might turn on one in the future, does one? This is an argument liberals love to throw out, even though they neglect to mention that E.S.P. wasn't part of the equation.

However, I will point out that when Osama turned on us, it was during the Clinton presidency, and al-Qaeda managed to do the Cole and a couple of our embassies with impunity -- since fundamentalist Muslims don't drink, they don't get hangovers, so who, exactly, was Bubba targeting when he bombed an aspirin factory?

Hmmm, Mogadishu also comes to mind.

ESP need not be part of the equation.

'Global politics' as you so neatly put it is something the US is very bad at. Backing authoritarian figures has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars in the post WWII era. Hasn't helped our cause overseas either.

It never required paranormal intelligence to glean that supporting thugs, sorry 'freedom fighters' against the regime in Afghanistan or a dictator like Sadddam Hussein was a bad idea from the get go. Never a question of whether eithher of these bad actors would 'turn against us'. Only a question of when.

But alas, it did happen, and no matter who one may blame for it, the terrorist acts against our embassies and the U.S.S. Cole went down on Clinton's watch, and he did nothing. he sent troops into Mogadishu and as soon as the enemy drew blood, he pulled the troops back out. He made us appear weak and cowardly. As a result, Osama and Co. were emboldened to attack us again in Sep 2001. Now, Bush, on the other hand, responded -- bin Laden is now laying low and we've killed or captured most of his key people.

When the Republic was in peril, in Ancient Rome, they turned to a Dictator. This person was given every power to save Rome. He had the the highest amount of lictors with their bundled rods of authority, "fasces", from where we get the word "fascist".

When crisis was averted and Rome was safe, the Dictator had to step down and dismiss his lictors and send his army home. He had to allow the Republic to once again run as before.

Is this a possibility? Dare we need someone who can do this, and who will then retire from power, as the English made Churchill leave?

We've never had to do this sort of thing before. Do you all think a dictatorship will spring forth in order to save Western Civilization?

Atheling2 --

Welcome!

While I don't foresee our country {because our form of government wouldn't permit it} opting for an all powerful dictator, per se, I can see, and this after we've had a couple more serious and successful terrorist incidents on U.S. soil, Congress enacting stronger war powers authority to the President, to cut through and above internal political obstructions (read that as interference coming from the left, who seem determined to undermine Bush's homeland security efforts wherever possible using imagined civil rights violations and bogus moral high ground points) and crush Islamofascism once and for all without the potentially suicidal PC idiocy that's helped nobody but the enemy. I believe that the Republican majority on the Hill could bring that about, given their will to do so, but not, unfortunately, without further terrorist attacks lighting a fire under them and powering the will of the American people to support them.

That said, were such a scenario to develop, there would have to be a firm legal understanding that this special authority would end as soon as victory was declared.

The only way we will beat this enemy will be through utter hard-nosed ruthlessness and the willingness to tell the UN and several Euro countries to pound sand, though I don't believe, by that time, that even France (spit!) will offer much resistance as Europe will have more than paid for their lemming-like capitulatory stance toward Islamic extremism.

Yes, I see your point. The way we are fighting now is like with one hand bound behind us. We have two fronts in this war: Islamofascists and the Left.



Concerning Europe and the growing Muslim population there, could something like concentration camps be looming there? After all, history repeats itself.

atheling2 --

Europe is a mess at the moment, whether they'd acknowledge it or not, thanks to the EU, socialism and their insistence upon placating Islamists who wish them only harm.

However, I see no possibility of a detention camp scenario over there, unless of course they continue to follow their socialist path to its "logical" Marxist conclusions, in which case all bets are off. :-)

Seth,
If I understand you correctly, "The only way we will beat this enemy will be through utter hard-nosed ruthlessness and the willingness to tell the UN and several Euro countries to pound sand,.."you suggest what Israel has been doing for the last 60 years. I would submit, that despite huge US military/economic aid, the Israelis have for decades killed and rounded up terrorists and continue to deal with them on a daily basis. Looks like kill one, make three, to me. Any other ideas?

Welcome, BB --

One thing you do not take into account re Israel is that the global community -- read that as the U.N. and related usual suspects, have seemed to find one way or another to disrupt Israeli security operations whenever they have become "too effective".

Israel has never yet been "permitted" to actually go the distance before the U.S., generally under pressure from the U.N. and European countries, intervened via "peace talks". The fact that none of these diplomatic events has resulted in any lasting peace has not been the fault of the Israelis: If you'll notice, the Israelis have always stuck to the terms of their agreements, as in releasing thousands of imprisoned terrorists and, more recently, evacuating and ceding territory to the so-called Palestinians (funny, there was no such thing as a Palestinian until Israel achieved statehood, LOL), while the Palestinians have never fulfilled a single part of their own responsibilities in said treaties.

The U.S., however, is not "bound" by the same limitations as Israel -- while we are bombarded with criticism when we interrupt the commercial interests of countries like France and Russia in the interests of defending freedom, we are both too wealthy and too powerful militarily to have to worry about anything more than rhetoric.

If we decide to do what needs to be done to defeat terrorism, nobody will dare try to stand in our way with anything more than harsh words.

"Sticks and stones", as they say...