Carol Platt Liebau: Post-"Thumpin'" Conservatism

Monday, January 08, 2007

Post-"Thumpin'" Conservatism

In this piece, the brilliant Charles Kesler offers conservatives two much-needed reminders: First, that electorates must be persuaded -- not merely reminded -- to vote in accordance with conservative principles; and second, that the definition of conservatism is, currently, very much up for grabs.

Professor Kesler, who is affiliated with the well-respected The Claremont Institute, seems less-than-sanguine about the Bush plan of reducing the threat of Islamofascist terrorism through the spread of democracy. And, indeed, his misgivings are certainly well-taken -- the problem, however, is that the Bush approach so far has seemed to be the only proactive plan for actually beating back the spread of Islamofascist terror.


Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

If you take 9/11 out of the equation, America has been spared pretty much any terror activities by Islamic terrorists.

One theory for this is that America has been able to engage them in Iraq rather than on American soil - but that argument seems to fall down when one considers terror attacks in places like London, Madrid and Bali.

There's no doubt that America's internal security arrangements since 9/11 have helped enormously. However, given the problems of illegal immigration and illegal drugs entering America, it is obvious that many holes still remain.

So why aren't the Islamic terrorists exploiting these security holes?

I would argue that the reason is because the Islamic terrorists were never as sophisticated or well planned as we would like to believe. They do not have the wherewithal to take advantage of America's security holes without being noticed.

Which means, of course, that 9/11 was actually a lucky event, rather than the beginning of a well planned assault on America.

Islamic terrorism has not been, and never will be, a threat to world peace in the same way as Soviet Communism was in the 1950s and 1960s.

3:08 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

I think that's wishful thinking on your part, though I'd like to believe as much myself. However, it would seem that 9/11 proves that gall carries more importance than sophistication. That plan was not really that sophisticated as audacious, and it only took a few classes, a few box cutters and some plane tickets to carry out the plan. It is this gall and their belief that suicide while taking out as many of us as possible is the path to glory makes them indeed a great threat. Not in the same way as the Soviets, true, but a major and likely more dangerous threat. The Soviets didn't want to die, the Islamonutbags do. That makes them harder to scare off.

As to the lack of attacks since 9/11, another theory is that Bush's intel and interrogation techniques have exposed plots that were then thwarted before any damage could be done. This has been attested to in a general sense already. I am however, just as worried over the holes as you are. But keep in mind that there has been progress in disrupting their organization(s) so that launching the audacious attacks is more difficult. Many of the leaders have been captured or killed.

Finally, I don't think they're in a big hurry. I believe they'll take the time they need to insure success of some grandiose scheme. So while progress is being made in preventing a major event, they could very well have something in the works. Such patience though, gives our side the opportunity to find such plots out before they can be carried out.

All of these suggestions, including yours, are likely true in varying degrees. It would be nice to hear something substantial to support it and that's a major mistake of the administration, that they don't trumpet their successes to counter the negative stuff spewed by the left.

10:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home