Posted on 12/15/2007 10:24:05 AM PST by K-oneTexas
Why Aren't We At War? by Ken Marrero December 12, 2007
The War …
Is there a more divisive issue in the US today? Likely not. But it is acceptable to me that it should be so. After all, the stakes are high and people should have an opinion on the matter. I would expect that opinion to be a passionate one.
If your opinion is that all war is all wrong all the time, this article is not for you. I disagree with your conclusion in just about every way possible but I hold your opinion in high regard along with you for holding it. The elimination of war is a noble and admirable goal. I share it. I, too, am anti-war. Only psychotics are for the death and destruction that comes with combat.
What I am not, is anti-THIS-war. There are times and places when, in my opinion, one has no choice but to defend oneself from aggression. If an individual does it, it is called self defense. We fight back against someone attacking us. If a nation does it, it’s the same concept but it involves the use of military power. I’ve been pondering this over the weekend after considering what Pearl Harbor Day meant to me and means to so many.
The political Left in America today, especially the leadership of the Democratic Party, does not seem to be able to grasp this simple, basic idea. If one listens to them, we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan fighting terrorism and engaging terrorists on our terms on their soil. We should not be at war. I have to ask them, ‘Why?”
If pressed to explain their rationale for this position, they often fall back on the canard that Iraq didn’t attack us. I am not aware of anyone that has ever suggested that they did. We were not attacked by Iraq. We were attacked by terrorists. The terrorists, however, were tied to both (some of) the people and the government of Iraq. That made Iraq a legitimate opponent.
However, whether attacked by Iraq or a nebulous group of terrorists, attacked we were. I understand and can dialogue with those who feel Iraq is not a valid target. My question for them is, with whom then are we at war? The Left decries our military response to an attack but I have yet to see any serious suggestion from them regarding what an appropriate response should have been.
There is not a Democrat that has had the audacity to suggest that we were not attacked on 9/11. It is time for the Left to stop their political obfuscation and answer a couple of simple questions. Who attacked us? If you don’t like the strategy taken by the Administration, what serious alternatives have you and/or are you offering. If Iraq and Afghanistan are the wrong military targets, why are we not at war with those whom you DO consider responsible for the attacks on our nation?
The other argument that has gained some traction in the country is the one that says our military efforts are possibly needed, but currently illegitimate, because Congress, the Constitutional trigger for involving us in a war, has failed to do so. People holding this position refuse to accept Congress’s authorization of force and granting of broad authority to President Bush shortly after 9/11 as rising to the level of a declaration of war. Thus, the argument goes, we are not at war since Congress has not declared it.
Again, I understand the argument but this does not let the Left off the hook. After the 2006 elections, Democrats control both houses of Congress. If they had wanted to declare war and make it official they could have done so at any time. Is there a sentient person in the US who could imagine the Republicans and the administration objecting?
Once again, the Democrats must answer a simple question. Has the United States of America been attacked or not? If not, please explain how 9/11 should be understood? It will be difficult to simply say that Islamic fundamentalists were upset with the West in general and the US in particular and found no other way to express said upset outside of a horrific act of barbarism. Even if one concludes that the terrorists had a “right” to express themselves as they did, how is it not an act of war?
The only position for the Left to take consistent with their behavior over the last 6+ years is that we were not attacked. That position will obviously not have much traction with anyone in the country, Right or Left. But if we were attacked, why have we not responded properly? If the Administration and the GOP majority behaved improperly and did not declare war, why has the new Democratic majority not fixed that troubling oversight?
The Democrats now control Congress. They can do what they want. We have been attacked. Why are we not at war?
Thinking that since talk is cheap, perhaps the the reason the Left has done nothing BUT talk is that they’re bankrupt...
Ken Marrero is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
I don't. The idea that self-defense is inherently wrong is childish and adults who hold that belief deserve no respect.
“Why are we not at war?”
Because our concept of war has changed, it’s back to the good old Chamberlain days. We could be certain that Harry Truman, Eisenhower and even Kennedy would have reacted differently from the present “Islamisareligionofpeace” concept as held by Congress and Administration.
We have identified our enemy with that nebulous description of “terrorists”, no more. Who support these terrorists? What nationality and religion do they have? We have the answers to either question. Yet we still allow their immigration.
How can we possibly expect to survive when we allow them free access to the country? Why don’t our “leaders” take a long and hard look across the Atlantic and notice what is happening in Europe? Do they want the same?
“There is not a Democrat that has had the audacity to suggest that we were not attacked on 9/11.”
Well, except for all those 9/11 “truthers”.
>Because our concept of war has changed, it’s back to the good old Chamberlain days. We ..
And there is is.
Did Germany ever attack us?
Now I know that Hitler was ranting on, but who gave a flick?
He was there and we were here and that is what it was.
We destroyed Germany because we should have.
It was far better to take care of that menace at that time, than later, when they had the Bomb and more advanced rockets.
Why is war always bad?
Damn near every good thing came about as the result of violence on a massive scale to achieve a certain end.
“Why is war always bad?”
Apparently you don’t understand what I am saying. What I mean with the good old Chamerlain days is the time that England thought that war could be avoided by trying to appease Hitler.
We are in those type of days again. We are trying to appease Islam. Just read the newspapers and notice how we bend backwards and forwards falling over each other trying to please these people who do not appreciate America and have every intention to change it for the worse.
Ice cream?
Grow up.
You first.
I know what you were saying, and I agree with you.
I was just trying to expand on it, not challenge you on it.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, and thanks for the post - Bill
No offense taken.
The Germans sunk dozens of merchant ships off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts before we entered the war. Germany declared war on the US the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.
I am aware of when Germany declared war, and I believe that I wrote that I am.
The merchant ships were fair prey.
My point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.