by arthur Weinreb, associate Editor,
October 28, 2004
In a recent interview with Fox News, George W. Bush said that he doubted that the United States would ever be free from terrorism. John Kerry’s response was to say, "It’s not up in the air. We will win the war on terror."
It would be reassuring if Kerry’s comments were simply election rhetoric; of saying black when his opponent in a tight race says white. The reality is that Kerry actually believes what he said and shows, like others on the left, that he has no concept of what terrorism in today’s world actually is.
Bush is right; terrorism will never be completely eradicated. It can be fought, deterred and controlled but can never be totally eliminated. The "war against terrorism" is not a war in the conventional sense that World War II was. In previous wars between states, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers left their families and went off to fight for their respective countries. When the war ended they were all perfectly happy to return home to their families and resume butchering, baking and candlestick making. Terrorism on the other hand has nothing in common with traditional warfare. Islamic radicals are not motivated by loyalty to their state or to anything else including their religion. They are motivated by pure hatred. and hatred is something that Kerry and those on the left do not understand.
Those on the left often confuse terrorism with crime and fail to see the similarities between crime and terrorist acts. Terrorism will never completely be defeated any more than bank robberies, sexual assaults and drunk driving will be eliminated. The best that can be hoped for is that by fighting these acts, they can be kept down to a minimum.
More importantly, not only do Kerry and others on the left fail to see the similarities between terrorism and crime, they fail to see the differences. During the Clinton years, acts of terrorism were viewed as ordinary, run of the mill crimes. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton seemed proud of the fact that law enforcement officials made quick arrests after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. arrests and convictions — case closed. But of course it wasn’t. The thought that others would follow and finish the job never occurred to the former president. after other terrorist attacks Clinton was satisfied to lob a few missiles at places such as the aspirin factory in Sudan, preferring a slight a non useful deterrent to going after the terrorists. Perhaps, and just perhaps, had the previous Democrat administration taken stronger action bin Laden and al Qaeda, September 11 might not have happened.
It is the failure to understand the hate that terrorists have for the West that leads those on the left to view terrorists as, in the words of John Kerry, nothing more than nuisances. What Kerry really said is that he would reduce terrorism to be nothing more than a nuisance; that was back in the days when the Massachusetts Senator realized that eliminating terrorism was not possible. Kerry only concluded that terrorism could be wiped out when George Bush said it couldn’t. The flip-flopping Kerry is not the person that americans can look to for their security.
On top of not understanding the terrorist threat, Kerry has no specific plans to deal with the war in Iraq. Other than saying that he can fight the insurgents faster, cheaper, better and sexier than President Bush can he really hasn’t said what he will do to make both his country and Iraq safer. The only aspect of the war that he is specific on is that he will somehow get France and Germany to send troops to Iraq so that their soldiers will die instead of americans. Good luck, Johnnie.
Terrorism is like any other evil--it cannot be successfully fought unless it is understood.