Clash of Civilizations...

Not that I claim this idea as mine, because I don't. In fact, I first heard it expressed by Tom Friedman--a guy I usually disagree with. However, we are in a Clash of Civilizations. A war of the worst type--a religious war. On one side are the Islamofacists. And on the other are Those-who-worship-Freedom.

So I present here another post making this same point. And Van der Leun believes that we will have to get hit again hard to make us all understand what we're facing.

On September 11, the agents of Radical Islam began their attempt to destroy Freedom by attacking it at its core. The reaction of Freedom to this assault has been, once you consider the destructive power of the weapons systems it possesses, measured, deliberate and cautious. This is because Freedom, although sorely wounded, does not yet feel that its very existence is threatened. A more serious attack at any time in the future will put paid to that specious notion.

I again am in complete agreement with Van der Leun when he says...

What we must seek is not merely the "control" and "containment" of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.

My signature line at The High Road is...

I do not wish for Peace with our Enemies.
We did not create our enemies--they created themselves.
What I really want is Victory over our Enemies.

Anyway, I encourage a trip over to The American Digest. [Note to self: Update the links!]

Update: Links now updated, and Chris Muir is added too!

Oh, That Chris Muir...

Sure "get's" it.

Storing This...

For use in a debate in another venue...

Clicky Click.

The Elites have it all wrong...

The elite in this country--the media, academia, many pundits--have it all wrong. Americans, by and large, approve of our military and what we're doing.

Case in point...

Yesterday in Savannah, we arrived at the gate to see a wife and two teenage daughters waiting to greet their hero home from the war. [How they were able to get inside security for this event is another story. However, I digress.] They'd made posters and carried American flags. They even went to the trouble to distribute smaller American flags to the crowd.

As the Navy Captain, in desert camo, came into the terminal from the jetway, a great round of applause broke out and those with flags waved them enthusiastically. Hugs and tears were exchanged between the separated family members, and the tears spread to the crowd.

Grand Canyon...

One of the best movies I've ever seen is Grand Canyon. The theme is that we're often faced with very bad circumstances in our life, which will suprisingly lead to something very good (and vice-versa). As you're in the middle of what you think is the worst thing possible, something really great is just around the corner.

In that vein, the war in Iraq, and more broadly, the War on Terror looks to be in bad shape. About the best thing one can say about Iraq is that we're in a stalemate. The sectarian fighting does have the potential to descend Iraq into a civil war. No one seems to be willing to effectively confront Iran. Hezbollah, while having been pounded more than they're admitting, did hold off long enough to claim victory over Israel. It all appears to be headed in the wrong direction.

I'm not the only one with this view. My main guys are feeling it too. So, what an inspiration it was to read in the comments to one of their posts...

"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly...."

Thank you, brentbo.

The Electoral College...

I've been a fan of the New York Sun for about a year now. It is a smallish, mostly conservative newspaper that I pick up while on layovers in NYC. I enjoy their reporting and editorial slant. It should not have to be said that I've given up completely on the New York Times--I won't even grab one off a seat somewhere.

The other day, I picked up a Sun which had an article on their front page on an effort among New York state legislators to "curb the Electoral College". Many in blue states cannot help but remember that the 2000 presidential election had Bush winning the electoral vote, but Gore winning the popular vote, and they want to "correct" that. They are entirely disingenuous, however, when they openly admit that this is an attempt "...to establish a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment, which requires the support of two-thirds of Congress and 38 states...." In other words, find a way around the clear meaning of the Constitution because, you know, it's unlikely that they would actually succeed in amending it.

The supporters of this movement miss the obvious: The interests of those in urban coastal cities are often very different than the interests of other voters. They are entirely locked into their arrogance that Big States=Smart States that they are proposing a change which might result in case where the voters of "as few as 11 of the most populous states" might determine the Presidency.

Who cares the wishes of all those hicks in the South, the hayseeds in those flyover states, and all those rubes in those big square states that nobody can name? We've been to Haaavad; We've marched in Berkeley. We know better than them who ought to be President.