Much debate amongst commenters over whether the Cold War was more dangerous than the current struggle. Vodkapundit takes sharp issue with the hated Instapundit on this and we are inclined to go with the heavy drinker (it's the Catholic in us).
The threat of radical Islam was never that massed legions would thunder across the fields of northern Virginia into Washington, or that Osama bin Laden would review his conquering legions in the streets of New York after taking the city by main force.
No, the danger here is of a loss of will by the West; that it prefers submission to resistance and that the burkha replaces the bikini.
It is already underway. The fawning attention paid to Muslim sensibilities; the unwillingness to speak out against "honor killings," and - perhaps the most salient example - the virtual adoption of Islamic law for family matters by Canada.
A right-wing dictatorship of American hyper-patriots is nothing more than a bogeyman trotted out by unrepentent leftists who would rather face an imaginary enemy than a real one.
Unlike Communism, radical Islam has no Central Committee. There are no factories to bomb, no borders to mass against. It is viral, infiltrating societies and using gangster tactics to impose its desires.
Like organized crime, it can be defeated, but only if the West has the will to do it. So far, this hasn't been in evidence.
Instead, large segments of the West seem willing to accept the power of the Godfathers and kiss his hand if it means they'll be left alone.
That is the profound and critical difference between the Cold War and the current struggle. Whereas the Cold War was waged by nations, the War on Terror is waged by individuals. If enough of the West opts out, it will lose.
We are reminded of the Riddle of Steel from Conan the Barbarian. Flesh is cut by steel, but in the end what is the sword compared to the hand that wields it?
A substantial portion of the American political leadership wants to flee Iraq, free the prisoners at Gitmo, and otherwise seek terms with radical Islam.
Bin Laden doesn't have tanks because he doesn't need them. A few thousand motivated head-choppers may well do what millions of Soviet troops could not: convince the West to capitulate.
Unless we understand this danger, we cannot confront it - and we will be unable to defeat it.
Comments