Adam Graham
Where's Osama?
By Adam Graham
This question, repeatedly raised by the American left, shows that they really don't get it when it comes to the Global War on Terrorism.
In the first place, it shows a true lack of understanding as to the nature of manhunts. After the Olympic Park bombings, it took more than seven years to catch Eric Rudolph. Those who are resourceful and know how to hide in mountainous areas are not easy to catch, even with the full resources of the US government.
However, the left's greatest misunderstanding is that they believe this to be the ultimate question in the War on Terror. They think that just like in a police drama, capturing, trying, and (maybe) executing the bad guy is the end of the story.
With terrorism, it's a whole different animal. Unlike Tim McVeigh, Rudolph, the Unibomber, and your garden variety serial killers, Osama isn't a lone nutcase. There's a whole world full of Bin-laden's ready to take his place. One need only look at the left's previous rallying cry ("Where's Saddam?") to realize how silly it is to believe that the capture of one individual is a solution to terrorism.
Bush understands a basic fact that liberals don't. The entire Middle East is a tinderbox, full of terrorist groups, many of whom would love to unleash levels of devastation that would make 9/11 seem minor.
How do you deal with that? You have to fight terrorism and Islamofascism wherever it is. Removing one leader is like pruning a plant. It will grow back.
The Bush Administration has entered this fight in a number of ways including the use of military, economic, and intelligence pressures to fight the terrorists as a whole. They've been able to attack the infrastructure of terrorism, kill or capture many terrorists, and through intelligence gathering, stop terrorist attacks before they happen.
Many liberals will even argue against the use of the term "war." They'll point out that we're not facing a nation like Great Britain or Nazi Germany, but rather groups and individuals. While they have a point linguistically, practically they're all wet. It is a war because what's at stake is our national survival. We're not dealing with an enemy who sees the goal as intimidation or financial game, but rather bringing America to its knees.
People who hatch plots that involve killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions are not criminals, they are enemies of our country and are at war against it. If we fail, if a suitcase nuclear device is set off in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or Seattle, will it still just be a criminal action in the eyes of the American left?
I'd rather not find out, yet I fear we shall, if we put in a power a national leadership that so gravely misunderstands the threat we're up against. Osama bin Laden must be brought to justice, but let no one think that will solve the problem of terrorism.
© Adam Graham
This question, repeatedly raised by the American left, shows that they really don't get it when it comes to the Global War on Terrorism.
In the first place, it shows a true lack of understanding as to the nature of manhunts. After the Olympic Park bombings, it took more than seven years to catch Eric Rudolph. Those who are resourceful and know how to hide in mountainous areas are not easy to catch, even with the full resources of the US government.
However, the left's greatest misunderstanding is that they believe this to be the ultimate question in the War on Terror. They think that just like in a police drama, capturing, trying, and (maybe) executing the bad guy is the end of the story.
With terrorism, it's a whole different animal. Unlike Tim McVeigh, Rudolph, the Unibomber, and your garden variety serial killers, Osama isn't a lone nutcase. There's a whole world full of Bin-laden's ready to take his place. One need only look at the left's previous rallying cry ("Where's Saddam?") to realize how silly it is to believe that the capture of one individual is a solution to terrorism.
Bush understands a basic fact that liberals don't. The entire Middle East is a tinderbox, full of terrorist groups, many of whom would love to unleash levels of devastation that would make 9/11 seem minor.
How do you deal with that? You have to fight terrorism and Islamofascism wherever it is. Removing one leader is like pruning a plant. It will grow back.
The Bush Administration has entered this fight in a number of ways including the use of military, economic, and intelligence pressures to fight the terrorists as a whole. They've been able to attack the infrastructure of terrorism, kill or capture many terrorists, and through intelligence gathering, stop terrorist attacks before they happen.
Many liberals will even argue against the use of the term "war." They'll point out that we're not facing a nation like Great Britain or Nazi Germany, but rather groups and individuals. While they have a point linguistically, practically they're all wet. It is a war because what's at stake is our national survival. We're not dealing with an enemy who sees the goal as intimidation or financial game, but rather bringing America to its knees.
People who hatch plots that involve killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even millions are not criminals, they are enemies of our country and are at war against it. If we fail, if a suitcase nuclear device is set off in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or Seattle, will it still just be a criminal action in the eyes of the American left?
I'd rather not find out, yet I fear we shall, if we put in a power a national leadership that so gravely misunderstands the threat we're up against. Osama bin Laden must be brought to justice, but let no one think that will solve the problem of terrorism.
© Adam Graham
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
