The War on Cowardice

"This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man."

- Sir Winston Churchill - War Speech - September 3, 1939, House of Commons

One of the attributes of higher life forms – even Lefties - is their aptitude for comprehensive thinking: that ability to discern patterns and connections not immediately apparent and thus recognize the greater reality of a given circumstance. When it comes to utter fantasy – the Global Warming Crisis or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for instance - Lefties are quite adept at finding patterns and connections, particularly where none exist. When it comes to matters of national security, however, they opt to disconnect this function of their brains.

The latest instance of this selective brain engagement occurred March 27, 2007, when Democratic staffers on the House Armed Services Committee issued a memo entitled "Style Guide for Defense Authorization Report." With this memo they instructed aides as follows:

"When referencing military operations throughout the world, please be as specific as possible. Please avoid using colloquialisms such as, 'the war on terrorism, or the 'Long War.' Please do not use the term 'global war on terrorism.' "

In reaction to the memo, an irate and flabbergasted House Minority Leader, John Boehner, asked "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?" As we all know, the answer is: they don’t. After all, Michael Moore has so graciously assured us, "There is no terrorist threat."

Lefties claim the restrictions on speech prescribed in this memo are not intended to be political; they merely seek to be more precise about military operations. Thus, they argue, phrases such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world" are more effective then sweeping terms such as "Global War on Terror" or "The Long War." In certain instances, this is unquestionably true. However, in terms of ensuring that the citizens of Western Civilization fully appreciate the vast scope of the threat we face, such semantic dissection is nothing short of suicidal; naïve at best, deepest cynicism at worst, but in either case suicidal.

In truth, criticism of the branding of our current struggle as a "War on Terror" is nothing new. Not a few commentators on the Right have been critical of the term, though for far less idiotic and defeat-ensuring reasons. Most argue that, in fact, the term does not go far enough in scope nor specificity. Many alternatives have been bandied about: War on Islamo-Fascism, War on Extremist Ideologies, but these don’t present well on t-shirts and bumper stickers. More importantly, they too fail to identify the full scope of the peril we are in, for it is becoming increasingly evident that we face as much threat from forces that are internal and insidious as from those that are external and explosive.

Thus, I unveil here for the first time my definitive brand name for the war formerly known as The Global War on Terror: THE WAR ON COWARDICE. (copyright pending, order #354.98B - 4.6.07).

For I ask you, what does one call those who fight in disguise from behind the safety of women and children?

What does one call one who refuses to do the nasty work at hand and merely criticizes those doing it?

What does one call those who deal in half truths with the sole goal of improving their standing in the eyes of others, regardless of consequence?

What does one call those who exist comfortably within the sanctuary of freedom hard won by better men and vow to bring it down?

The answer is, of course, cowards. My dear readers, our planet is lousy with cowards. We must either defeat them or become them. And talk about comprehensive! Cowards pervade every aspect of our world, seeking in countless ways to destroy Western Civilization. Why? Because Western Civilization is premised upon principles that demand and reward the best in mankind, principles that inspire terror and hatred in cowards.

For the better part of our histories, we citizens of Western Civilization - both Left and Right – embraced these principles and defended them whence e’re they were imperiled. Now, when these principles are perhaps in gravest danger, are we to be so divided and conquered? Or will we manage once again to summon the best within each of us, and find the strength to fight this war "to establish and revive the stature of man" ?

Cheers,

Charlie