The Price Of Pansyhood
A few unorganized thoughts
regarding the events in New York:
(1) We lost. Our moral
posturing about our degradation is merely embarrassing. We have been made
fools of, expertly and calculatedly, in the greatest military defeat the
country has suffered since we fled from Viet Nam. The Moslem world is laughing
and dancing in the streets. The rest of the earth, while often sympathetic,
sees us as the weak and helpless nation that we are.
The casualty figures aren't
in, but 10,000 dead seems reasonable, and we wring our hands and speak
of grief therapy.
(2) We cannot stop it
from happening again. Thousands of aircraft constantly use O'Hare, a few
minutes flying time from the Sears Tower.
(3) Our politicians and
talking heads speak of "a cowardly act of terrorism." It was neither cowardly
nor, I think, terrorism. Hijacking an aircraft and driving it into a building
isn't cowardly. Would you do it? It requires great courage and dedication
-- which our enemies have, and we do not. One may mince words, but to me
the attack looked like an act of war. Not having bombing craft of their
own, they used ours. When we bombed Hanoi and Hamburg, was that terrorism?
(4) The attack was beautifully
conceived and executed. These guys are good. They were clearly looking
to inflict the maximum humiliation on the United States, in the most visible
way possible, and they did. The sight of those two towers collapsing will
leave nobody's mind. If we do nothing of importance in return, and it is
my guess that we won't, the entire earth will see that we are a nation
of epicenes. Silly cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan will just heighten
(5) In watching the coverage,
I was struck by the tone of passive acquiescence. Not once, in hours of
listening, did I hear anyone express anger. No one said, coldly but in
deadly seriousness, "People are going to die for this, a whole lot of people."
There was talk of tracking down bin Laden and bringing him to justice.
"Terrorism experts" spoke of months of investigation to find who was responsible,
which means we will do nothing. Blonde bimbos babbled of coping strategies
and counseling and how our children needed support. There was no talk of
(6) The Israelis, when
hit, hit back. They hit back hard. But Israel is run by men. We are run
by women. Perhaps two-thirds of the newscasters were blonde drones who
spoke of the attack over and over as a tragedy, as though it had been an
unusually bad storm -- unfortunate, but inevitable, and now we must get
on with our lives. The experts and politicians, nominally male, were effeminate
and soft little things. When a feminized society runs up against male enemies
-- and bin Laden, whatever else he is, is a man -- it loses. We have.
(7) We haven't conceded
that the Moslem world is our enemy, nor that we are at war. We see each
defeat and humiliation in isolation, as a unique incident unrelated to
anything else. The 241 Marines killed by the truck bomb in Beirut, the
extended humiliation of the hostages taken by Iran, the war with Iraq,
the bombing of the Cole, the destruction of the embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, the devastation of the Starke, the Saudi barracks, the dropping
of airliner after airliner -- these we see as anecdotes, like pileups of
cars on a snowy road. They see these things as war.
We face an enemy more
intelligent than we are.
(8) We think we are a
superpower. Actually we are not, except in the useless sense of having
nuclear weapons. We could win an air war with almost anyone, yes, or a
naval war in mid-Pacific. Few Americans realize how small our forces are
today, how demoralized and weakened by social experimentation. If we had
to fight a ground war in terrain with cover, a war in which we would take
casualties, we would lose.
(9) I have heard some
grrr-woofwoofery about how we should invade Afghanistan and teach those
ragheads a lesson. Has anyone noticed where Afghanistan is? How would we
get there? Across Pakistan, a Moslem country? Or through India? Do we suppose
Iran would give us overflight rights to bomb another Moslem country? Or
will our supply lines go across Russia through Turkmenistan? Do we imagine
that we have the airlift or sealift? What effect do we think bombing might
have on Afghanistan, a country that is essentially rubble to begin with?
We backed out of Somalia,
a Moslem country, when a couple of GIs got killed and dragged through the
streets on TV. Afghans are not pansies. They whipped the Russians. Our
sensitive and socially-conscious troops would curl up in balls.
(10) To win against a
more powerful enemy, one forces him to fight a kind of war for which he
isn't prepared. Iraq lost the Gulf War because it fought exactly the kind
of war in which American forces are unbeatable: Hussein played to his weaknesses
and our strengths. The Vietnamese did the opposite. They defeated us by
fighting a guerrilla war that didn't give us anything to hit. They understood
us. We didn't understand them.
The Moslem world is doing
the same thing. Because their troops, or terrorists as we call them, are
not sponsored by a country, we don't know who to hit. Note that Yasser
Arafat, bin Laden, and the Taliban are all denying any part in the destruction
of New York. At best, we might, with our creaky intelligence apparatus,
find Laden and kill him. It's not worth doing: Not only would he have defeated
America as nobody ever has, but he would then be a martyr. Face it: The
Arabs are smarter than we are.
(11) We are militarily
weak because we have done what we usually do: If no enemy is immediately
in sight, we cut our forces to the bone, stop most R&D, and focus chiefly
on sensitivity training about homosexuals. When we need a military, we
don't have one. Then we are inutterably surprised.
(12) The only way we could save any dignity and respect in the world be to hit back so hard as to make teeth rattle around the world. A good approach would be to have NSA fabricate intercepts proving that Libya was responsible, mobilize nationally, invade, and make Libya permanently a US colony. Most Arab countries are militarily helpless, and that is the only kind our forces could defeat. Doing this, doing anything other than whimpering, would require that ancient military virtue known as "balls." Does Katie Couric have them?
©Fred Reed 2001.
All rights reserved.
Subscribe and get Fred weekly by e-mail! For free, yet!
When the e-mail form appears, just click on send. No message or subject is necessary.
(Subscribing doesn't provide your e-mail address to spammers.)