- The Washington Times - Sunday, September 11, 2005

Yesterday, Sept. 11, 2005, was the fourth anniversary of the start of the war. That is, if you believe it’s a “war.” A lot of people didn’t want to, even in those first days.

About a week after, one of my local radio stations held a fund-raiser and this is how their trailer for it opened. Cue the terminal-illness-movie-of-the-week soupy piano. Then: “After the tragic events of September 11 … .”

By the time I had heard it a half-dozen times, I retuned the dial and never listened to the station again. It wasn’t a “tragic event” or even one of a series of unfortunate events. It was an “attack,” an “act of war.” I sat at a lunch counter with a guy who tuned out the same station because “I never heard my grampa talk about ‘the tragedy of Pearl Harbor.’ ”

But, consciously or otherwise, a serious effort was under way to transform the nature of the event, to soften it into a touchy-feely huggy-weepy one-off. As I wrote last year, “The president believes there’s a war on. The Dems think September 11 is like the 1998 ice storm or a Florida hurricane — just one of those things.”

I didn’t know the half of it. If an act of war is like a hurricane — freak of nature, get over it — it’s evidently no great leap to believe a hurricane is an act of war. Katrina was thus “allowed” to happen because President Bush “hates black people.” The Army Corps of Engineers was instructed to blow up New Orleans’ 17th Street Levee so the flood would kill the poor people rather than destroy the valuable tourist real estate.

Whatever. As part of their ongoing post-September 11 convergence, the left now talks about Mr. Bush the way the wackier Islamists talk about Jews. I thought the Australian imam who warned Muslims the other week to lay off the bananas because the Zionists are putting poison in them was pretty loopy. But is he really any more bananas than folks who think Mr. Bush was behind the hurricane?

Mr. Bush apparently is no longer the citizen-president of a functioning republic but a 21st century King Canute expected to sit by the shore and repel the waters as they try to make landfall. And he and Dick Cheney hatched up the whole hurricane thing in the Halliburton research labs to distract attention from their right-wing Supreme Court nominee.

On this fourth anniversary we are in a bizarre situation: The war is being won — in Afghanistan, Iraq, the broader Middle East and many other places where America has changed the conditions on the ground in its favor. But at home the war about the war is being lost.

When the media look at those Bush approval ratings — now around 40 percent — they carelessly assume the 60 percent is some unified Kerry-Hillary-Cindy bloc. It’s not. It undoubtedly includes people who are enthusiastic for whacking America’s enemies but who don’t quite get the point of this somewhat desultory, listless phase.

If the “war” is now a push for democratization and liberalization in Middle East dictatorships, that’s a worthy cause but not primal enough to keep the attention of the American people. You would have had the same problem in the Second World War if four years after Pearl Harbor we were postponing D-Day in order to nation-build in the Solomon Islands.

Four years ago, I thought the “war on terror” was a viable concept. To those on the right who scoffed you can’t declare war on a technique, I noted Britain’s Royal Navy fought wars against slavery and piracy and largely succeeded.

Of course, since then we’ve had the shabby habit of presidents declaring a “war on drugs” and a “war on poverty” and, with hindsight, that corruption of language has allowed Americans to slip the war on terror into the same category: not a war in the same sense as a war on Fiji or Belgium, but just one of those vaguely ineffectual aspirational things that don’t really impinge on you much except for the odd pointless gesture — like the shoe-removing ritual before boarding a flight at Poughkeepsie.

The “war on terror” label has outlived whatever usefulness it had. And, as the years go by, it becomes clearer the war aspects — the attacks in New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, London — are really spasmodic flashes of a much more elusive enemy. Though Islamism is the first truly global terrorist insurgency, it shares more similarities with conventional terrorist movements — the Irish Republican Army or the Basque separatists — than many of us thought four years ago. Terrorist groups persist because their targets lack confidence: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew they could never win militarily but they also could never be defeated. That’s what the Islamists have bet.

Only a tiny minority of Muslims want to be suicide bombers and only a slightly larger minority want actively to provide support networks for suicide bombers. But big majorities of Muslims support almost all the terrorists’ strategic goals.

For example, a recent poll found more than 60 percent of British Muslims want to live under sharia in the United Kingdom. That’s a “moderate” westernized Muslim: He wants stoning for adultery in Liverpool, but he’s a “moderate” because it’s not such a priority he’s prepared to fly a plane into a skyscraper.

As with IRA killers and the broader Irish nationalist population, these shared aims provide a large comfort zone in which terror networks can operate. And it enables the nonviolent lobby groups to use the terrorists — or the threat of terrorists — as part of a good cop/bad cop routine.

Thus, the Islamic lobby groups pressure governments to make concessions to them rather than to the terrorists, though both elements have the same aims. You can pluck out news items at random: In London, a religious “hate crimes” law that makes honest discussion of Islam even more difficult; in Ontario, Canada, the moves toward sharia courts for Muslim community disputes; in Seattle, introduction of separate-sexes Muslim-only swimming sessions in municipal pools. The September 11 terrorists were in favor of all these things.

So four years on we’re winning in the Middle East and Central Asia but floundering in Europe and North America. War is hell, but a war that half the country refuses to recognize as such staggers on as a very contemporary kind of purgatory.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain’s Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide