The relationship between the left and war is complicated. On the one hand, the left has pretty much taken ownership of the anti-war movement. From the 1900s onward, pacfists have almost always been of the left.
War was associated with greed, capitalism and hyper-nationalism. This thread has been consistent through the next century. Name any conflict and odds are you will find leftists agitating against it in significant numbers.
Yet at the same time, the left's entire purpose for being has been to wage war against the existing order. Indeed, there is a peculiar dynamic at work: The more the left becomes alienated from actual labor (heavy industry, agricultural production, construction) the more violent their imagery and language has become.
There is something deeply pathetic about bloated civil servants aligning with papered children of privilage to "occupy" various areas. Even violent protest has become a form of street theater where leftist agitators undergo the ritual of vandalism and arrest all the while keeping daddy's lawyer fully informed.
With the Obama presidency, we have reached the apogee of this strange combination: The US will use military force, but it will deny that it is a war. It will ask people to support the nation, but urge people not to really support it.
"War fever" is out of the question.
Like the Johnson administration, this White House sees force as a something to use on a carefully calibrated scale, to be dialed up and down in order to make an impression. The overriding concern is whether the conflict is "too violent" and therefore could look bad on television.
The proverbial "boots on the ground" are right out because things could get messy. We will fight, but only from a position of impunity and only in a half-hearted way.
And if people should die, their remains will be kept discretely out of sight. Under Republicans of course, the press demands to see the corpses to rail against George W. Bush's bloody foreign adventures, but under the left, the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan has no place; the parents of our fallen need to be kept away from cameras.
I did not post on the anniversary of Sept. 11 2001 for three reasons.
First, I was out of town and knew that my estemeed co-blogger would take up the slack, and he did so admirably.
Second, I see the date as increasingly irrelevant. We are arguably in a worse situation than we were on Sept. 10, 2001. Our security apparatus focuses on imaginary threats and stealing everyone's email (when it isn't watching porn) while we open the southern border in the hopes that the flood of future Democrat voters won't also include terrorists. Moreover, such is the message control of this administration that if an attack does happen, all documents relating to it will be promptly misplaced.
Third, I suspected there may be an attack on the anniversary (as there was last year) and that my post might be overtaken by events. Thank God I was wrong.
It is all well and good to be a long-term optimist trying to overlook short-term problems, but even a fearless warrior such as Winston Churchill was crippled by bouts of deep depression. It is for this reason that I often take breaks from blogging about world events and focus on happier fare. It is the only way to keep my sanity.