Sunday, December 31, 2006

Why Hasn't There Been Another 9/11?

Over at Blew Blewitt's place, Dean Barnett offers up this theory:
I’VE NEVER OFFERED THE FOLLOWING SPECULATION in print, primarily because I didn’t want to jinx things. But I think the main reason we haven’t had a repeat of 9/11 or something worse in over five years is because George W. Bush scares the s**t out of his enemies. When domestic liberal whine, “He scaaaares me,” they really mean it. The world’s bad people feel the same way. The American reprisals to a terror attack that took place under George W. Bush’s watch would likely be swift, brutal and disproportionate.

Our enemies may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. I bet the next 9/11, which will probably be magnitudes worse than the previous 9/11, will wait until George W. Bush is gone from office. Our enemies see the rest of our leadership class as anxious to curry favor with those who threaten our destruction. And while the road-to-Damascus Senators are the worst offenders, practically our entire “elite” structure is suspect. The Baker Group was bi-partisan. The media? Don’t even get me started. If our enemies were to conclude that a major attack on U.S. soil would cause many of our political factions to sue for peace, they would be wrong. But they wouldn’t be unreasonable.

Bush’s successor will be tested. That’s almost a certainty. And while Bush’s communications skills and policies have too often been wanting, the country may someday pine once again for a President who was feared.
I think Dean has pretty much hit the nail on the head and drove it straight through the board. He couldn't be more right if he was posting on National Review Online instead of Blew Blewitt...

Our next president, whomever he or she may be, will be tested by the Islamofascist enemy we are facing. Our only hope is that this person has the strength and courage required to protect America first and worry about her relationships with Europe later.

Far too many people in this world seem to think that proportionate response is somehow compassionate. It isn't. If one side has the ability to crush their enemy swiftly, they should do so in order to prevent mass casualties on both sides of the conflict. I don't want to wander off on a tangent here, but the cold hard facts are that we have been fighting the war on terror with one hand tied behind our back. After 9/11, President Bush hit our enemies hard and quick. It is a lesson that our leadership class should learn well. My only complaint is that I think the pressure was lifted too quickly in Afghanistan...the job wasn't finished. That lesson, too, should be studied by our future leaders.

(HT: BizzyBlog via email)