Posted on 09/23/2001 8:27:04 PM PDT by Pokey78
In 1982 when the Falklands were invaded, we in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet agreed we had no choice but to send our forces to liberate the islanders.
I remember very clearly our sombre mood as we felt the responsibility for all that decision was to mean. But it was nothing compared to the responsibility which has fallen on President Bush, his deputy Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
The attacks on New York and Washington were unprovoked, and I say to those spineless, hand-wringing apologists for terrorism who cry that if America strikes back it would unleash more attacks: 'Tell me, why do you think that the murderers of 6,000 innocent people are not already planning their next attacks?'
Surely if America rolls over like a whipped dog with its legs in the air, the terrorists would see that as an invitation to strike again - and again and again.
Of course, a military response will not guarantee that no terrorists will ever strike again - but not to strike back guarantees that they will.
If your kitchen is invaded by wasps as soon as you open the marmalade, swatting out wildly is more likely to get you stung than to rid the place of wasps.
You have to go into the garden, track the wasps to their nests and burn them out, every one. It matters less whether they have stung than whether they are able and willing to sting.
Naturally, the American response must be carefully planned and executed, and I believe it will be. They have learned a lot since Vietnam and more since wars in the Gulf and the Balkans.
I am sure they know that merely launching missiles to turn over once again the ruins of towns already destroyed by Afghanistan's long civil war would do little but alarm friendly states in the Muslim world.
The innocent belief of Americans that terrorism affected only other countries has been shattered.
The American people grew up as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre came down. The world's most powerful nation now knows that terrorists cannot be appeased, nor is there any safe place to hide.
Six thousand civilian deaths have brought the sombre realisation that, to be safe, a nation needs not only a vast and powerful army, but also to accept that its soldiers may have to give their lives in battle.
The infrastructure of terrorism, the terrorists and those who nourish them, must all be destroyed. It will not be solely military action.
Diplomacy is important. Former rogue states must be encouraged to see the risk to themselves - particularly Muslim states intent on raising the living standards of their peoples.
The world financial community will have to take responsibility for cutting off the money which has financed wholesale murder and threatens economic mayhem.
But, in the end, burning out the terrorists has to be done by men on the ground. This is a battle in which the bullet - and even the bayonet - will be more effective than the bomb. Short, that is, of the unacceptable use of nuclear weapons.
Bin Laden and others have incited young men to give their lives in a so-called holy war against the West, particularly the Great Satan, America.
They might survive bombing in their hideouts without dishonour, but there is no easy option if special forces land and attack those bases.
They either fight and die, are captured alive, or run away. It seems to me that if those who call on their supporters to take the martyrs' path to Paradise are seen to be more intent on saving their skins than following their own call to war, their credibility would be fatally weakened.
The war against terrorism is far harder to fight than a war against another state. It has no territory of its own to occupy. No tanks, planes nor ships to be blown up, shot down or sunk.
Terrorism is amorphous, soaking into societies like a poison, but it has bases which can be destroyed, roots which can be dug up and financial arteries which can be severed.
This war will be long and hard. There will be no Victory Day with flags, church bells and parades. We will only know how successful we have been as days, months and years go by without more atrocities.
We in Britain cannot be neutral. Terrorists do not give us that choice, and it is overwhelmingly in our interest that America should prevail.
So the Prime Minister should be guaranteed unstinting but not uncritical backing for his support of America - including our special forces in action and sharing our knowledge of Afghanistan and its neighbours.
It is a pity that by rewarding the IRA Mr Blair has encouraged terrorists to believe that Britain is a soft touch.
We must hope that his brave words will be put into action here too, where he is busy destroying the RUC - the finest anti-terrorist police force in the world.
He may even accept that his Human Rights Act gives more rights to terrorists than to their victims, and give Home Secretary Blunkett support to put that right.
It may even be that Americans will realise that funding and arming the IRA is as morally unacceptable as funding Bin Laden.
There were far, far fewer lives lost at the Grand Hotel than the World Trade Centre, but I can assure our American friends that the view from under the ruins in Brighton is much the same as it is in New York.
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.