We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.
When Would the Terrorists Win?
do protesters and bloggers safely protest against Bush, yet are strangely
silent regarding Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people?
The phrase popped up in the days after September 11, 2001, and became instantly trite. "If we don't X, then the terrorists have won", where X was replaced with things like:
"get back to our normal lives" "resume broadcasting 'Saturday Night Live'" "rebuild the Twin Towers"
The phrase became the brunt of late night talk show monologues. Pretty soon you couldn't take it seriously, because so many silly things had been tagged to it.
But then consider this: What value of X would actually make that statement the most true? In order to answer that question, you have to figure out what the terrorists are trying to do? Now, trying to get into their collective heads and determine their specific motives may be an exercise for a psychologist, not me, but I can think of a value for X that is at least generally true of terrorists in general.
X = "respond, because we're afraid"
Basically, if terrorists have instilled terror into us, to the point that either we do what they want us to do or we don't do what they don't want us to do, they've won the battle, if not the war. The point of terrorism is to instill so much fear that we relent to their demands, either actively or passively.
And so, consider the following quotes from the left side of the aisle:
Leave Terrorists alone, they might strike back -- chalk writing on sidewalk at a student war protest at Stanford University, 3/5/2003, as reported by Chrislin's blog (who, by way of disclaimer, doesn't agree with the sentiments expressed)
What do all these sentiments have in common? Fear. Don't go to war, because the terrorists or the madmen might hurt us back. Just let Saddam continue to torture his own people. Don't respond to al Qaeda attacks. Hussein will change...he just needs more time (12 years surely isn't enough), and if we push too hard he might push back. If we don't bother Osama, maybe he'll leave us alone.
Listen to the protesters, the bloggers, the pundits. When they get past their caricatures of Bush as Hitler and their mantras, listen to them. Why do they insist on doing the same thing that has been done for years without success? Why do they suggest that war never solved anything, when it plainly has (ask a thankful Kuwaiti or a Frenchman born after 1945 whose native language isn't German)? Why do they safely protest against Bush, when Hussein has committed (actual) atrocities against his own people and yet they say nothing?
War is an awful option. "War is hell", no doubt about it. But the only reason Saddam is feeding crumbs to weapons inspectors is because of the threat of war. The only reason he left Kuwait in his "blood for oil" war was because of the force of war. And the only way he'll "comply" with UN resolutions is if he is physically forced to. The only reason some small semblance of freedom returned to Afghanistan is because war forced out the Taliban, who never had any intention of stopping bin Laden from his murderous ways.
The United States has responded to terrorists with full knowledge of the possible consequences, but was not afraid to act in its own interest. Ask that aforementioned Kuwaiti or Frenchman, or perhaps a woman in Afghanistan who can now go to school, what it means when we're not afraid of terrorists or madmen.
If you're afraid of terrorists, they've beaten you. If this nation becomes terrorized because we don't have the will to act, the bin Ladens and Husseins of the world have us right where they want us.
If we don't respond, because we're afraid, then the terrorists have won.
Doug Payton is a software developer and happily married father of 4 in Atlanta, Georgia. Other essays can be found at his web site "Consider This!", and his short takes on the news of the day can be found on his blog "Considerettes".