From “The Federalist”:
President Bush has launched a series of weekly addresses rallying support for our ongoing War with Jihadistan — and not a minute too soon. Since its inception, The Federalist has noted that the “War on Terror” was a misnomer — as it implies clearly defined fronts and a conflict that would end with a decisive “win.” Furthermore, as we have noted, this conflict is more akin to the Cold War — a protracted campaign. Indeed, a much better name for this conflict would be the “Global Campaign Against Terror.”
To that end, President Bush told the graduating class of the Air Force Academy that, indeed, this conflict could take decades to “win.” “We are now about three years into the war against terrorism,” he said. “This is no time for impatience and self-defeating pessimism. These times demand the kind of courage and confidence that Americans have shown before.”
The Federalist has also argued consistently that we must keep the warfront on Jihadi turf in places like Iraq and Afghanistan — lest they bring it back to ours. The President confirmed that strategic policy, noting, “Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornets’ nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do — suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? … We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy.”
4 thoughts on “”
Hey! You missed my question!Do you like the poem “Dulce et Decorum Est,” by Wilfred Owen?
Hey, Reuven — I must confess, I never studied Latin, so I am taking a stab at the last lines — I’m assuming they mean something to the effect of “sweet and honored is the patriot’s death”??? I’m sure I could find the meaning on the internet, but I’m a little pressed for time.
The poem, even without the lines brings me to tears. War is not glorious, and in no way resembles the movies (except for perhaps, “Saving Private Ryan,”). I’ve lost family members to conflicts, both in country and once they returned home. Vietnam did terrible things to those who served, but I extend honor to them just the same, because I believe they felt it their duty to go. Fighting is a grave and serious thing, and I wish it were never necessary — but as long as there is evil in the hearts of mankind, there will be war. I am grateful there are those brave enough to serve.
The curiosity was killing me and so I took the time to look — Sweet and Fitting It Is to Die for One’s Country —
I also read that the poet was extremely opposed to one nation intervening in the affairs of other nations.
I can agree with that, to a point. When the affairs of other nations are affecting the affairs of my own and negotiations do no good to rectify that . . . well . . .
Not to say that going to war is justified in all situations. I don’t think we should proclaim war on Mexico because they refuse to control the flow of illegal immigrants. Why should they? Those illegals send American dollars back to Mexico. But it’s not a “war-worthy” issue.
However, nations that support terrorism, either in action or by lack of action, that’s another story. The terrorism that was brought to our shores and resulted in the deaths of 3,000 people. That is war-worthy. Yes, men will die. But they will die so that others might live. Perhaps their deaths are “bittersweet” as opposed to “sweet.” Bittersweet in that there is grief, there is sorrow . . . but there is honor in stepping up to do what is right.
Interesting poem and I’m glad you shared it with me.
Thanks for the support on my site. You rock.
I am thinking of blogging about why Texas is my favorite state (And it has little to do with the fact that every Texan says so!)