In wartime, two types of battles are waged: one that uses physical weaponry, and one that relies on ideological warfare.
Opposing forces use both types of warfare to try to weaken and ultimately defeat their enemies. The latter, however, is used to subvert, and ultimately collapse an enemy's will to fight.
And as has been shown time after time throughout history, the ideological war often strongly influences (if not dictates) how the military war is fought, and its ultimate outcome. A strong, proud nation is capable of withstanding and repelling its enemy's ideological warfare.
But what happens when the enemy's ideological warfare campaign strategies and tactics are mirrored by those in high political office in one's own nation? The answer is: subversion from within, by acting to echo, justify and propagandize the enemy's message and strategy.
Let me be clear: One need not agree with or endorse everything that America's Commander-In-Chief does. In our free society, there can be --- and ought to be --- principled, calm, reasoned debates everywhere from the kitchen table to the highest legislative bodies, so long as they are focused on one common goal: the security of one's own nation.
Today, however, the enemy that America is engaged in a generational struggle against --- militant Islamism (Muslim supremacism & totalitarianism) is getting invaluable, enduring and powerful assistance from one of America's two dominant political parties. And I am convinced that future historians will look back upon today's Democratic Party (and their enablers in the MSM and beyond) as a phemenon that has no parallel.
First there was Sen. John Kerry's claim that U.S. soldiers are "terrorists." Then there was Rep. John Murtha's claim that the U.S. "cannot win" in Iraq. Then there was Speaker Nancy Pelosi playing diplomatic tonsil-hockey with Syrian tyrant Basher Assad (mere hours after she refused to allow the House to vote on a resolution condemning Iran's taking of 15 British soldiers and holding them hostage). Then Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed the U.S. has "lost the war" in Iraq.
Then, the Democrats in the House and Senate tried to upend our Constitution at its roots, by declaring that it is they --- not the President and the generals under his command --- who are vested with the lawful authority to dictate how lawfully-authorized military engagements are fought, and when, where, and how troops are deployed and when they are to be withdrawn. And thanks to the insufferable dumbing-down that our (Democrat-enabled) teachers unions have perpetrated on generation after generation of our kids, most Americans don't even know the most basic provisions of the Constitution, so they are unable to tell the difference; right now, it's an "anything-goes" in regards to Constitutional matters.
And stretching back to 2003, Democrats and militant leftist organizations have --- just like jihadists --- been calling President Bush a "war criminal," and America an "imperialist aggressor" for daring to finally go on the offense against jihadists and their enablers after the 9/11 attacks.
Then, as documented here at JQWorld, in The (Literal) "Daily Call For Surrender," turns out the Democrats are holding daily phone conferences with the most rabid leftist anti-war groups, to plot and plan strategies and tactics to force America to surrender to al Quada in Iraq (and by default, in Afghanistan and elsewhere). And as usual, the MSM just let out one big collective *yawn.* (Of course, if it were discovered during the Clinton administration that the Congressional Republican leadership was holding daily conference calls with their supporters, to plot strategy to subvert his military deployments [Kosovo, Haiti, etc.], the Democrats, their MSM lapdogs and leftist activist groups would be going apeshit bananas, screaming for hearings, campaign-finance investigations, etc.)
And through it all, the jihadists and their enablers have been laughing their collective asses off, because the Democrats and their seething leftist base has been largely doing their work for them, regarding their ideological warfare campaign against America.
Most recently, on Sunday, June 10, Sen. Joe Lieberman told CBS's Bob Sheiffer that the U.S. Senate has conclusive evidence that Iran has been training, arming, deploying and supporting jihadists that have murdered upwards of 200 of our soldiers, across its border in Iraq. Lieberman went on to say that this cannot be allowed to continue --- and that if Iran doesn't stop this activity post haste, the U.S. may have to take military action against Iran, primarily in the form of air strikes against the bases and facilities where these activities are occurring.
And what was the response from the top eschelon of the Democratic Party?
Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed that the U.S. should not even consider striking Iran --- a de facto enemy that has been and is provoking a military battle with America --- because it would "destabilize the region." Unironically, this is almost precisely what the Iranian madman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his minions are saying: that if America launches any kind of military attack against any of its facilities, up to and including those devoted to its nuclear-weapons development, that it would not only (a) destabilize the region, but that it would (b) trigger a severe response, up to and including the deployment of 50,000 suicide bombers (many of whom are now living among us, or could be rapidly redeployed from bases in Central and South America), to strike on U.S. soil.
Further, Sen. Reid went on to deliberately mischaracterize what Sen. Lieberman said, by referring to his statements as indicative of supporting an "invasion" of Iran, which Lieberman clearly did not say.
But today, facts and context no longer matter to leading Democrats (or their enablers in the MSM). Nor, apparently, does the very-real and very-obvious encouragement that Iran --- one of the world's leading sponsors of jihadist murder and intimidation --- derive from the current Democratic strategy to subvert America's efforts to combat this deadly enemy.
To draw an analogy, imagine if there were a gang of murderers that was terrorizing a town. The people would rightfully look to their law enforcement agencies to hunt down this gang and bring them to justice --- and if they refused to be taken alive, to physically strike back so hard that the gang was rendered unable to commit any more of its murderous acts. But what would happen if a significant (if not dominant) portion of the town's law enforcement leadership proclaimed that it would not pursue the gang, because it would only make things worse, by "destabilizing" the town? More importantly, what would such a message send to the gang of murderers? It would tell them that despite all the bluster and justified rage of the townspeople, the gang has won the tacit approval to continue its murderous reign, because the townspeople have been rendered impotent by the policies adopted by their leaders --- policies which could well have been written by the gang itself, to ensure not only its survival, but the lawful impossibility of an armed response.
Let history be our guide as to what happens when such a phenomena occurs not in a town, but on the world stage, when murderous regimes are not only tolerated, but are given a tacit moral sanction by the one organization that is (supposedly) chartered to prevent international conflicts: the United Nations.
Iran and its proxies in Hezbollah, etc., have murdered more Americans than any other Islamist group prior to the 3,000 that al Quada did, on 9/11. It declared war on America in 1979, and has been at war with us ever since. And we have done essentially nothing, except to withdraw from every fight they have provoked with us. Surprise: this has only served to embolden Iran's political leaders and its mullah-ocracy (especially being that we are so dependent on their oil, and our leftist legislators have prevented us from weaning ourselves from foreign oil, by prohibiting the expansion of our ability to find and access our own oil supplies, on our own soil).
Today, if Lieberman is correct, Iran is facilitating the murder of our soldiers. And Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel (and by default, any nation that stands up to it) off the map" via the nuclear weaponry it is developing. And the supposed body of international moral governance and diplomacy --- the U.N. --- cannot even muster the votes necessary to condemn this clear violation of its charter.
But while the U.N. is a passive enabler of Iran's murderous acts and aspirations, the Democratic Party is actively enabling it, by using the power of our laws (that they are now largely in command of) to subvert America's ability to finally respond to Iran's acts against us. Put simply, if Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi were actually being paid by Iran, it's hard to imagine how much more they could be doing to subvert American security than they already are, today.
And yet one presumes they aren't doing this for money --- they are doing it out of a combination of sheer political expediency, to hold onto their power at any price, which means placating the seething, America-hating, jihadist-appeasing leftist organizations that constitute their "new base," led by MoveOn.org, which proudly claims it has "bought, paid for, and now owns" the Democratic Party, en masse.
Let a principled debate begin on how to deal with the very-real, very-potent threat that Iran represents to not only American security, but to global stability. But by their actions, such Democrats have rendered themselves not only unworthy of engaging in such a debate, but actually detrimental to one --- because American security, and a rational view of justice, is clearly not what they are aiming for.
Perhaps once the MSM's fixation with Paris Hilton, the latest celebrity dust-ups, and up-to-the-minute poll standings of presidential candidates abates, we can actually engage in such a debate.
Though I'm an optimist, I won't be holding my breath.
It will be up to ordinary Americans, and especially bloggers and those precious few news outlets that refuse to act as sockpuppets and enablers of the Democratic Party, to let Republicans (and security-minded Democrats) know that if they will not finally lay down the law with Iran, then we will find public servants who will.
UPDATE: File this under "Wisdom from the most unlikely sources..."
After the recent pet-food scare, I contacted the manufacturer of the one I use. Upon learning that the food I buy was not included in the recall, and in response to my concern, the firm opted to send me a coupon for a substantial discount off my next purchase.
The coupon arrived today, along with instructions for those who wish to transition their pets from wet to dry food. After Step 1, which discusses how to portion the old vs. new types of food during the transition period, along comes:
"Step 2: Don't give in to demands. During the initial two-day period, don't give your dog treats or table scraps. Giving in to his demands only reinforces refusal behavior."
Wow, eh?Maybe I should make a photocopy of this instruction sheet and send it to the Democratic leadership (and the State Department, etc.). It's painfully evident that they've never been exposed to this principle.
Iran, Syria and North Korea have learned this principle quite well: rattle your physical and ideological sabres against a better-armed but internally-corrupted opponent, and they'll give in every time. The U.N. has been in the business for 50 years of giving in to demands of the most bloodthirsty and brutal regimes (including jihadist ones), all in the name of "getting along."
And as has been warned, the ultimate showdown between America and the bastards behind those nations will, in all likelihood, be far bloodier than it would have been, had we dealt with them when the mountains of problems we face today were mere molehills.
Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to firstname.lastname@example.org